Bullying and social functioning, schemas, and beliefs among youth at clinical high risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis experience high rates of bullying. There is little research on the differences between CHR who did and did not experience bullying. However, there is evidence that bullying may be related to negative schemas and social impairment. OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in core schemas, asocial and defeatist beliefs, and social functioning between those who did and did not report bullying experiences in a large sample of CHR individuals. We hypothesized that bullying in CHR youth would be associated with poorer social functioning, increased maladaptive beliefs, and negative core schemas. METHODS: CHR participants (N = 203) were split into those who did and did not report experiencing bullying. The two groups were compared on demographic characteristics, social functioning, and belief variables, using the Brief Core Schemas Scale, the Asocial Beliefs Scale, the Defeatist Performance Attitudes Scale, and the First Episode Social Functioning Scale. RESULTS: 72.9% reported experiencing bullying. These participants had greater severity of negative schemas about others and asocial and defeatist performance beliefs, and lower social functioning scores. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of bullying among CHR participants is high. Bullying may be a risk factor for increased asocial and defeatist beliefs, negative core schemas, and poor social functioning. Targeting maladaptive schemas and beliefs during treatment may serve to improve functional outcomes in this group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".