MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917196867 · doi:10.1007/s42380-020-00087-y

Substance Use and Sexual Risk Taking in Emerging Adults with a History of Bullying Victimization

2021· article· en· W2917196867 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel A. Provenzano, Michael Boroughs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bullying Prevention · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyAnxietyMental healthStressorMediationSubstance useCoping (psychology)Adaptive functioningDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bullying victimization is a chronic stressor that can make it difficult for victims to cope in more adaptive ways. Consequently, victims may engage in health risk behaviors such as substance use and sexual risk taking to cope with bullying experiences. However, the specific types of emotional problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) victims cope with remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine which mental health difficulties may function as pathways linking bullying victimization with both substance use and sexual risk taking in a sample of emerging adults ( N = 650; 336 women, 314 men; M age = 20.07, SD = 1.70). Mediation analyses provided some support for hypotheses. Bullying victimization had significant direct effects on substance use and sexual risk taking. In addition, bullying victimization had a significant indirect effect on substance use through depressive symptoms and significant indirect effects on sexual risk taking through anxiety symptoms and self-esteem. Emerging adults with a history of bullying victimization may use less adaptive coping strategies such as substance use and sexual risk taking to manage emotional problems such as depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and/or low self-esteem.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bullying PreventionSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207