MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414955575 · doi:10.1080/01443410.2025.2559175

Cyberbullying probability, not frequency, predicts mental health: a gendered investigation of individual, familial, and school-level predictors

2025· article· en· W4414955575 on OpenAlexaff
Qianqian Pan, Sisi Tao, Qianru Liang, Min Lan, Nancy Law, Cheng Yong Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthVictimisationPerspective (graphical)Suicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study distinguishes between the probability and frequency of cyberbullying to examine its malleable predictors, mental health impacts, and gender differences among primary school children. We analysed data from 1031 students (49.75% male) and their parents across 19 primary schools in Hong Kong, employing a two-part model that distinguishes between the probability and frequency of cyberbullying experiences. The findings reveal that the probability of experiencing cyberbullying, rather than its frequency, was a significant predictor of poorer mental health in children. Higher digital literacy (DL), lower academic stress, and less frequent online activity were linked to reduced cyberbullying involvement for both boys and girls. Better family functioning was associated with lower rates of perpetration and victimisation among girls only. These findings offer a nuanced perspective on how individual, familial, and digital factors distinctly shape cyberbullying experiences and their mental health outcomes across genders in primary school students.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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