Investigating the Relationship Between Bullying Coping Strategies and Cognitive Distortions in Adolescent
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between adolescents’ use of cognitive distortions and their coping strategies for dealing with bullying. This research aims to contribute to the scientific understanding and resolution of bullying behaviors, which are frequently observed in schools and raise concerns among young people. Within the study, the relationships between cognitive distortions and the strategies used by adolescents to cope with peer bullying were examined descriptively. Convenient sampling method was used in the selection of the study group. The study group consists of 483 students studying in high schools in Erzurum city center. Bullying Coping Strategies Scale, Cognitive Distortions about Relationships Scale, and Personal Information Protocol were used as data collection tools. As a result of the study, significant results were found between the bullying coping strategies used by adolescents and their cognitive distortions. In addition, it was determined that cognitive distortions predicted coping strategies with bullying at a significant level.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it