MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405059686 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5_59

Cyberbullying and Social Media

2024· book-chapter· en· W4405059686 on OpenAlexaff
Robin M. Kowalski, Gary W. Giumetti, Justin W. Patchin, Shelia R. Cotten, Wendy Craig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaSuicidal ideationPsychologyAnxietySocial psychologySocial anxietyState (computer science)Political scienceSuicide preventionMedicinePoison controlPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent years have seen an increase in research devoted not only to cyberbullying broadly speaking but to cyberbullying and social media specifically. With the majority of 13–17-year-olds using social media apps such as YouTube or TikTok on a regular basis, there are concomitant increases in involvement in cyberbullying as victim and/or perpetrator, both within the United States and around the world. Outcomes of cyberbullying for victims and perpetrators include heightened levels of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, often accompanied by lower levels of self-esteem. Much of the cyberbullying that occurs among adolescents on social media platforms involves current or former classmates, placing schools in the difficult position of having to decide whether to intervene or not. Considering these issues, in this chapter, we examine the current state of the research focusing on cyberbullying involvement and social media, including policy and legal issues, uncover limitations of the existing research, and identify ways forward for future researchers and practitioners.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207