The perspective of university students on the availability and effectiveness of cyberbullying prevention and response initiatives on campus: Virtual semi-structured interviews on resources, barriers, and solutions
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
Cyberbullying is a problem in educational settings, and much of the research has focused on the development of effective prevention and response initiatives. Because of the vulnerability of children, cyberbullying research and intervention programs have largely targeted elementary students. A growing body of research has shown that cyberbullying is not limited to elementary settings, but the problem is also prevalent in postsecondary institutions, with potentially severe negative consequences. Yet, there is a gap in research about interventions tailored to this life stage. To address this gap, we conducted virtual semistructured interviews through Zoom with 21 university students on the availability and the effectiveness of prevention and response initiatives on campus, existing barriers, and potential solutions. We found that university students were concerned about a lack of available initiatives, and they identified several barriers, including a lack of cyberbullying conversations occurring on campus, limited knowledge about the impacts of cyberbullying on university students, and stigmatization associated with cybervictimization, which made it difficult for students to openly talk about their experiences. To remedy these barriers, university students offered several solutions: increasing education for postsecondary students, faculty, staff, and support teams; conducting studies examining cyberbullying from the unique life stage perspective of young adulthood and employing an ecological point of view; and finally, creating age-appropriate cyberbullying resources, such as flyers, webpages, and anonymous reporting systems. A central theme across these solutions was the need for conversations around cyberbullying experiences at the postsecondary level, as students perceived that it was treated as a taboo topic.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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