Comparative study of bullying case-handling systems: South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] This study compares school‑violence case-handling systems in South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (focusing on British Columbia) to identify transferable practices that ensure prompt response, victim protection, procedural fairness, and educational restoration. [Methods] We conducted a cross-national policy analysis of statutes, regulations, official guidance, and school‑level manuals. Four comparative criteria guided the analysis: (1) case-handling procedure; (2) victim–perpetrator separation measures; (3) student support systems for victims and perpetrators; and (4) educational approaches to prevention and response. [Results] Across all four systems, case-handling procedures are time-bound from intake to follow-up, and separation is framed as a protective rather than punitive measure.Korea implements a nationally standardized process anchored by deliberative committees and School Violence Zero Centers. The U.S. follows a decentralized, statute-driven model in which principals lead investigations under state-defined procedures, combining individualized safety plans with graduated discipline. The UK emphasizes school-based responses led by head teachers and Designated Safeguarding Leads, supported by multi‑agency child‑protection coordination and Ofsted oversight. British Columbia institutionalizes a multi‑agency, risk-assessment framework with staged intervention and periodic reviews. Across countries, support systems and preventive-educational approaches increasingly adopt restorative and multi-tiered strategies that integrate psychological support, educational rehabilitation, and whole-school climate initiatives. [Conclusion] This international comparison yields implications–particularly regarding educational approaches and multi-agency collaboration–that can inform the further development of Korea’s school violence case-handling system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".