Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullying is a pernicious problem in the modern world, leading researchers to ask whether this is a new behavior or whether bullying has more ancient roots. An evolutionary perspective on bullying suggests that it is a behavior that extends well beyond modernity. Adopting that perspective, I chose to examine evidence for adolescent peer bullying in Western cultures during Antiquity (i.e., Ancient Greece and Rome), the Medieval Period, and the Renaissance. Given the scarcity of evidence for the daily lives of adolescents, I focused on two sources of information. First, I analyzed broad cultural factors that may have related to bullying. Second, I examined anecdotal evidence for adolescent bullying. The cultural data reveal that at one level, bullying was a structural feature of historical life in Western Europe and thus was very likely to be present among adolescents. At the anecdotal level, most of the evidence for historical bullying focuses on hazing rituals associated with education. Thus, direct evidence for historical bullying is scant. This may be because peer bullying was rare in history or it may be because peer bullying was not something worth recording. I lean towards the latter interpretation and argue that historically, bullying was at least as common in the past as it is today, with the severity of bullying often exceeding what is seen in modern cultures. These data fit with an evolutionary perspective of bullying and argue for the importance of considering historical research when creating and testing modernized theories of bullying and bullying interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".