MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2635777226 · doi:10.1177/0829573516683068

When Push Comes to Shove: How Are Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder Coping With Bullying?

2016· article· en· W2635777226 on OpenAlexafffund
Alyssa A. Altomare, Adam W. McCrimmon, M. Catherine Cappadocia, Jonathan A. Weiss, Tanya Beran, Amanda D. Smith-Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyCoping (psychology)Autism spectrum disorderThematic analysisAutismDevelopmental psychologyPeer victimizationClinical psychologyCognitionQualitative researchPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are frequent targets of peer victimization (i.e., bullying). Although the frequency and potential impact of such experiences on students with ASD has been examined, the potential coping strategies implemented by such students are relatively unexplored. This qualitative study examined coping strategies for peer victimization as suggested by 38 students with ASD who do not have cognitive impairment. Participants viewed cartoons depicting characters that experienced various forms of bullying at school and responded to open-ended questions to explore their suggested coping strategies. Thematic analysis yielded three themes: approach coping, avoidance coping, and complexities of bullying. This study provides insight into the coping strategies implemented by students with ASD and possible avenues for school-based intervention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207