Challenging the “‘Mean Kid”’ Perception: Boys’ and Girls’ Profiles of Peer Victimization and Aggression from 4th to 10th Grades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student involvement in peer aggression is assumed to include the uninvolved, victims, aggressors, and victim-aggressor groups. Yet, evidence supporting this four-group configuration is equivocal. Although most studies report the four groups, several of the aggressor groups could have been labeled as moderate victim-aggressors. This study first reviews studies identifying subgroups of students involved in verbal, relational, and physical aggression. The study then assesses students’ perceived involvement in elementary ( n = 2,071; Grades 4–6) and secondary school ( n = 1,832; Grades 7–10), as well as the associations with outcomes (school belonging, depressive thoughts, and perceived school violence). Latent profile analysis identified three profiles (uninvolved, victim-only, and victim-aggressor) across all grades and genders. In primary school, the uninvolved, victim, and victim-aggressor respectively included 54.56%, 37.51%, and 7.83% of the girls, and 44.23%, 31.92%, and 23.85% of the boys. In secondary school, the uninvolved, victim, and victim-aggressor respectively included 80.16%, 14.93% and 4.91% of the girls, and 64.31%, 22.95% and 12.74% of the boys. Victims and victim-aggressors reported poorer adjustment than uninvolved students. Victims and victim-aggressors reported lower levels of school belonging and higher levels of depressive thoughts than uninvolved students. Also, victim-aggressors perceived more violence in their school than victims and uninvolved students, and victims perceived more violence than uninvolved students. These findings question the existence of an aggressor-only profile, at least, according to student perception, suggesting the need for a new perspective when intervening with students involved in peer aggression.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".