Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer-to-peer bullying is a serious and pervasive form of maltreatment experienced, perpetrated, and witnessed by young people in school settings (Modecki et al., 2014;). Bullying behaviours may be direct, or relatively open attacks on the victim of a physical or verbal nature, and indirect or covert social acts such as gossip, exclusion or isolation (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Olweus, 1993, p.87). These behaviours in school settings are associated with significant negative psychosocial and physical consequences (Campbell et al., 2012). Surprisingly, bullying experiences in organized sport settings have received minimal research attention literature. Of the few existing studies, research suggests bullying does occur in sport (Collot-D'Escury & Dudink, 2010; Kerr, Jewett, MacPherson & Stirling, 2016) and is influenced by several factors, including an athlete's lack of ability, age and status, perceived lack of effort in practice or competition, and particular personality attributes (Kerr et al., 2016). Building on this foundation, this presentation will address the findings of two recent studies that explored the prevalence of bullying in sport through an online questionnaire completed by 122 athletes, as well as, the effects of these behaviours derived from 9 narrative interviews. Results demonstrate the scope of athletes' experiences as victims, perpetrators, or witnesses of verbal, social, and physical bullying and illustrate the adverse implications of these experiences, including negative effects on mental health, sense of self, and attrition from sport. The findings are interpreted with attention to the psychosocial development of athletes and the importance of enhancing scholarship on this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".