Social Disadvantages and Peer Victimization: Exploring Potential Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study tests a conceptual framework guided by the social disorganization theory, which examined whether neighborhood deterioration was correlated with perceived hopelessness, and coping strategies (i.e., defending behavior and a display of a tough demeanor). We also examined whether, within the context of social disadvantage, some coping strategies were correlated with aggressive behavior, which might be associated with peer victimization. The study sample consisted of 502 African American youths in low‐resource communities in Chicago’s Southside. Results indicated that neighborhood deterioration was positively associated with hopelessness (B = .138, p = .006), tough demeanor (B = .137, p = .042), and peer victimization (B = .158, p = .011). Also, hopelessness was positively associated with peer victimization (B = .109, p = .025). Defending behavior was positively associated with physical aggression (B = .110, p = .009) and verbal aggression (B = .047, p = .019). Moreover, tough demeanor was also positively associated with physical aggression (B = .217, p < .001) and verbal aggression (B = .169, p < .001). Furthermore, verbal aggression was found to be positively associated with peer victimization (B = .766, p = .019). Overall, findings point to a more nuanced and complex relationship between neighborhood conditions and peer victimization among urban African American youth. An understanding of the coping strategies of urban adolescents in dealing with peer victimization encounters can shed light on the complexities of adolescent peer dynamics in urban areas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".