Managing cyberbullying among adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: A scoping review
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
PURPOSE: While there is evidence for the effectiveness of programmes targeting cyberbullying in general adolescent populations, less is known for adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders, who are at heightened risk of involvement in cyberbullying. This scoping review aimed to identify and map the evidence in relation to managing cyberbullying among adolescents aged 10-19 with neurodevelopmental disorders. METHOD: The following databases were searched: ProQuest (including dissertations and theses), PsychInfo, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened the studies in two stages: Title and abstract, and full text. RESULT: Twenty-nine studies were included; 19 involved exploring existing strategies used by adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders, their parents, teachers, or service providers, to manage cyberbullying. The remaining 10 papers implemented and evaluated the effectiveness of cyberbullying prevention and/or intervention programmes. CONCLUSION: While there is some emerging evidence for the efficacy of cyberbullying programs for adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders, the literature is sparse. Future research should explore the efficacy of programmes delivered at classroom, small group, and individual levels and examine how adolescents with a range of neurodevelopmental disorders and diverse learning needs respond to such programmes. Critically, this may help reduce cyberbullying incidents and the subsequent impact on mental health among adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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