Nonsuicidal self‐injury in elementary schools: School educators' knowledge and professional development needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research suggests that nonsuicidal self‐injury (NSSI; the intentional destruction of bodily tissue without suicidal intent) occurs among elementary‐aged children. However, it remains unclear to what extent elementary school educators encounter NSSI among students and how they respond. Therefore, this study investigated cross‐national differences in Canadian and Belgian elementary school educators' knowledge of, and experience with NSSI among students. More specifically, elementary school educators' perceived reasons and supportive needs of students who engage in NSSI, as well as their own professional development needs, were explored. In total, 181 elementary school educators across Canada ( n = 63) and Belgium ( n = 118) were recruited through teacher association listservs and by school administrators who distributed the study information to school staff. Chi‐square tests revealed that Canadian elementary school educators had more often encountered NSSI among their students than Belgian educators, although Canadian and Belgian school educators' similarly reported feeling ill‐equipped to deal with NSSI among students. Thematic analyses revealed that educators believe elementary‐aged students engage in NSSI because of various intrapersonal (e.g., low self‐esteem) and interpersonal stressors (e.g., bullying). Moreover, the majority of educators would like professional development to more effectively respond to students. Implications for schools and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".