Bullying and HIV Risk Among High School Teenagers: The Mediating Role of Teen Dating Violence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teen dating violence (TDV), bullying, and HIV risk behaviors are public health concerns that impact adolescents in the United States. National estimates reveal high rates of these risk behaviors among high school students. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, we hypothesized that experiencing teen dating violence (sexual and physical) would mediate the impact of bullying on HIV risk. METHODS: Data were from the 2013 National Youth Behavior Risk Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) among students who answered questions on bullying, TDV, and HIV risk (N = 13,571). The YRBSS is conducted biennially among 9th- to 12th-grade students nationally. We used multiple regression analysis and Hayes' SPSS process macro to examine the 2 study hypotheses. RESULTS: Findings from bivariate analysis suggest an association between bullying and HIV risk. The study also found associations between physical, sexual teen dating violence and HIV risk. Results also indicate that both physical and sexual teen dating violence mediate the association between bullying and HIV risk. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that multidimensional interventions should be developed to reduce the rate of teen dating violence and combat bullying as a preventative method for HIV risk among high school students.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it