MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967817819

Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization in Tanzanian Secondary Schools: Prevalence and Predictors

2019· article· en· W2967817819 on OpenAlexaff
Hezron Z. Onditi, Jennifer D. Shapka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education, Humanities and Sciences (JEHS) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyMedicineClinical psychologyMedical emergencyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explored cyberbullying and cybervictimization, and the role of sociodemographic and access to technology variables for Tanzanian adolescents. A self-report questionnaire was completed by secondary school students aged 14 to 18 (Form 1 to Form IV). Results provide evidence that online violence is increasingly becoming a problem of concern for Tanzanian adolescents. In particular, whereas 42% of the students reported to have cyberbullied others using electronic communication devices, 58% admitted having experienced cybervictimization. Also, results showed that students who spend more time online, share cellphones with others, and who access digital devices in a private location are more likely to experience cybervictimization. We also found out that students who use digital devices in a private location, and who spend more time online (for older and male adolescents) were more likely to cyberbully others online. The findings provide a further evidence that cyberbullying is a problem of concern for all children and adolescents across cultures. The paper concludes by providing implications and suggestions for intervention programs, and for future studies

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education, Humanities and Sciences (JEHS)Same topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207