Parental Responsibility, Blameworthiness, and Bullying: Parenting Style and Adolescents’ Experiences With Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying
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
Parents are deemed morally—and, increasingly, legally—responsible for their children’s misbehavior, and their parental aptitude is questioned if their children are victimized. Parental responsibility laws and blameworthiness extend to common occurrences like bullying. Literature broadly supports these principles for some offenses through findings that effective parenting styles are associated with improved adolescent outcomes, but evidence about the relationship between parenting styles and bullying is underdeveloped and inconclusive. To study the relationship between parenting styles and traditional bullying and cyberbullying offending and victimization, data were collected from a sample of 435 Canadian middle and high school students. The results suggest that parenting styles are not associated with traditional bullying offending or victimization; however, neglectful parenting was associated with cyberbullying offending and indulgent parenting was associated with cyberbullying victimization. These findings suggest that the demandingness dimension of parenting, which is characterized by rule setting and monitoring, is important for cyberbullying prevention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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