MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Dark Side Of The Ivory Tower: Cyberbullying Of University Faculty And Teaching Personnel

2015· article· en· W334911438 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Wanda Cassidy, Chantal Faucher, Margaret Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIvory towerPsychologyTowerGreat RiftHigher educationMathematics educationUniversity facultyPedagogyMedical educationEngineeringPhysicsPolitical scienceMedicineAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses findings from an exploratory study on the nature, extent, and impact of cyberbullying experienced by 121 faculty members at one Canadian university. We situate cyberbullying in university on a continuum between cyberbullying in K-12 education and cyberbullying in the workplace and also take into account the power dynamics that characterize the post-secondary context. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of online survey data revealed that 17% of respondents had experienced cyberbullying either by students (12%) or by colleagues (9%) in the last 12 months. Gender differences were apparent plus racial minority status also appeared to render faculty members more vulnerable to cyberbullying. These findings suggest a rights-based lens could be used to analyze and respond to the vulnerabilities of women and other marginalized faculty in cyberbullying situations. This study contributes to the dearth of research on cyberbullying at the post-secondary level and raises the need to consider factors of difference, such as gender and race, in policy development and practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207