MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202048928 · doi:10.1177/02724316211036748

Examining Positive Youth Development Interventions With a Physical Activity Component to Address Bullying Among Pre- and Early Adolescents: A Critical Review of the Literature

2021· review· en· W3202048928 on OpenAlexaff
Elzahraa Majed, Yumary Ruiz, Steve Amireault, Jason B. Reed, Frank Snyder, Meghan H. McDonough, Bonnie Tjeerdsma Blankenship

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Early Adolescence · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialEmpathyPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychologyClinical psychologyComponent (thermodynamics)Developmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review aimed at identifying specific features of PYD interventions with a PA component that appear most promising at reducing bullying behaviors among pre- and early adolescents. We reviewed articles that included PYD interventions with a PA component among pre- and early adolescents aged 8–14 years from five databases and found seven studies representing 3892 participants. Studies collectively showed that PYD-PA interventions can promote an interactive and supportive relationship between participants and staff and foster adolescents’ psychosocial development. The review’s limitations include the variation of PA components and geographical contexts of interventions leading to a difficulty in synthesizing the results. PA-based PYD interventions provide a promising approach that can foster youth’s psychosocial development such as the use of an interactive approach and the use of several PYD components (e.g., empathy and caring ). This approach, consequently, may lower bullying behaviors. Given the nature of this review, further evaluation is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Early AdolescenceSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207