Do School Bullying and Student-Teacher Relationships Matter for Well-being and Academic Achievement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study purpose. This study examines how exposure to bullying is related to students' subjective well-being and academic achievement performance and investigates whether teacher support can moderate these relationships. Methods. We analyzed the United States sample data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 database. Multilevel linear models were constructed with well-being and academic achievement scores as the outcome variables, predictor variables including exposure to bullying, teacher support, school type, and the interaction term between teacher support and exposure to bullying. Results. Teacher support did not significantly buffer the effects of bullying on academic performance or student subjective well-being. Moderately frequent bullying adversely affected adolescent well-being and positively affected academic achievement. Frequent bullying had a non-significant effect on self-efficacy and academic achievement. Conclusions. These findings underscore the need for comprehensive strategies to address bullying and promote teacher support in educational settings while acknowledging the nuanced role of control variables in shaping adolescent well-being.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".