MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385693769 · doi:10.32920/23912883.v1

Anti-Violence Efforts in Canadian Schools: A Critical Look at Some Civil Society Responses to Bullying

2023· preprint· en· W4385693769 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tara M. Collins, Mona Paré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCivil rightsCivil societyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationCriminologySociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Violence is a significant issue in Canadian schools that includes a wide spectrum of actions among students commonly understood as “bullying” (Craig, Lambe, & McIver, 2015). While the efforts of governments and academic researchers are expected, less is known about how civil society is responding to this challenge and the significance of children’s rights in their responses. This paper outlines that many efforts reflect simplistic responses, funding issues, the need for greater prevention, improved coordination, long-term plans, as well as a general gap of children’s rights. The paper concludes that children’s rights must be better respected in these education efforts and that greater, coordinated participation is needed across civil society and beyond for progress with anti-violence efforts. With information about how various systems and institutions respond to violence, it is hoped that practitioners, researchers and policy makers concerned about violence in schools may further contribute to stronger rights-based advocacy efforts for, and with, young people.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.019
Science and technology studies0.0750.017
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.359
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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207