Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, researchers estimate that 23.3% of children are involved in some form of bullying (i.e., bully, victim or witness; Craig et al., 2009). Furthermore, the consequences of bullying are severe and often cause serious psychological harm (e.g., anxiety, depression, decreased self-esteem), physical damage (e.g., injury, stomach aches, headaches), and increased suicide risk (e.g., Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010; Storch & Ledley, 2005; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001). Despite the implementation of several anti-bullying intervention programs, bullying remains a problem in today's schools.Bullying, by definition involves an imbalance of power and can be considered the result of inequalities among social groups. Additionally, rules and regulations pertaining to bullying (i.e., bullying policies) have the potential to equalize power imbalances and reduce the occurrence of these behaviors in a school. Moreover, in 2012, the government of Quebec implemented Bill 56 for the purpose of preventing and stopping all forms of bullying in schools. This phenomenological case study employed a social justice epistemology to investigate the following research questions: (a) How are bullying policies constructed with regards to definition, purpose of items, underlying assumptions, and accessibility? (b) How are bullying policies understood by school personnel, at varying levels within a single school? (c) How is policy implementation described by school personnel at varying levels within a single school? To this end, data included an analysis of Bill 56, the school's bullying policies as well as online surveys and semi-structured interviews of school personnel. Furthermore, power and privilege were considered at all levels of analysis. Results of this study showed several positive changes in response to the new government guidelines, including a common language and definition with respect to bullying, the removal of victim responsibilities, the inclusion of items concerning confidentiality, and the inclusion of guidelines with respect to witnesses and parents. In addition to several positive changes from the implementation of Bill 56, the analysis revealed continued weaknesses with respect to the written policy in the areas of accessibility, diversity factors, macro-level intervention factors, and the inclusion of adults in the bullying dynamic. As well, there was a relationship between the written policy, participants' understanding of the policy and participants' descriptions of implementation. Implications for school policy development, training, implementation, and school psychologists are discussed as well as recommendations are made for future research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".