Perceived Social Support From Family and Peers: The Association With Bullying Behaviours
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
Bullying is a significant concern among parents, educators, and policymakers in which both bullies and victims are at greater risk for later maladjustment. Although the effect of perceived social support from peers on preventing and mitigating bullying behaviours has been extensively studied, less have examined the roles of perceived social support from family and peers simultaneously. This study examined the association between perceived family support and bullying behaviours among Canadian early adolescents and sought to identify the extent to which perceived family support would be comparable to perceived peer support. Adolescent gender and age were controlled to account for potential gender and age differences. Participants included students in grades 4 to 7 (N = 312) who completed measures of perceived social support from peers and family, and bullying behaviours. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that perceived family support had a significant, negative association with bullying behaviours among early adolescents. Moreover, perceived family support was found to be more significantly associated with bullying behaviours than perceived peer support. Findings corroborate the importance of perceived social support among early adolescents and emphasize a need to not only examine how perceived social support is associated with bullying behaviours, but to account for the significant role of the family during the early adolescence period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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