The Bullying Word: Exploring how Students, Parents, Teachers and Principals Interpret ‘Bullying’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 25 years, research, policies, programming and news reports have proactively tackled the evolving bullying problem, trying to remain ahead of the issue and provide relevant solutions for all educational community members. As of now, the majority of the literature written on the subject focuses on the changing rates of bullying, the different forms of bullying and lastly the negative impact bullying has on victims, offenders, bystanders and the larger school community. These three areas of research are all predicated on the “bullying” word being understood by different players in the educational community; however, as preliminarily research has started to demonstrate there is a growing and concerning trend of the “bullying” word not being commonly understand, which has the potential to cause problems as they relate to communication, assessment and problem solving. The intent of this study was to use a multiple case study approach to explore how students, teachers, parents and administrators understand the word bullying and how they arrived at their conceptualization. In order to accomplish this goal, individual interviews of each case study group were conducted at two southeastern Ontario elementary schools, specifically working with participants in or associated with the junior grades. The findings reveal that across and within different case study groups the definition of bullying has notable commonalities not yet documented in collective discourse, as well as problematic areas of vast subjectivity. In my study, I introduce the phrase “bullying word phenomenon” to describe the occurrence of the term “bullying” not being commonly understood by members of the school community, which has the potential to make problem solving more difficult and inhibit different research findings (i.e. the difficulties of assessing “bullying” rates if the term itself is not commonly understood). As this is an exploratory case study, my findings are based on my literature review and qualitative case study. With that said, awareness of these trends needs to spread, and more research needs to be done on the “bullying word phenomenon,” so as to assist with school problem solving and inclusion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".