Through teachers' eyes: understanding and addressing bullying and peer victimization in classrooms within the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most bullying and peer victimization occurs in schools (Kasen, Berenson, Cohen, & Johnson, 2004), making teachers essential to intervention efforts (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Voeten, & Sinisammal, 2004). However, school staffs' understanding of bullying may influence whether they actually perceive incidents as bullying and whether they intervene appropriately. Though the damaging effects of peer victimization are widely recognized (see Hawker & Boulton, 2000 for a review), a consensus on a single definition of bullying has proven difficult to achieve. As such, the current study investigated perceptions and understandings of bullying and peer victimization in a unique sample of 100 school personnel from the Avalon East Region of the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District (NLESD). School staff were asked to define peer victimization, and their responses were compared to the NLESD's definition of bullying in their Bullying Intervention Protocol (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – Education, 2013). School staff were also asked which strategy they would first implement when addressing peer victimization, as well as how important they perceived teachers to be in the lives of children who have been victimized by their peers. Results indicated that the majority of school staff defined peer victimization as being physical or verbal, and few defined the concept with reference to all three defining features of bullying, these being: intent, repetition, and a power imbalance. Most school staff reported using indirect strategies, such as restructuring the classroom environment, to address instances of bullying. This finding did not vary by staff grade level taught or years of experience. The majority of school staff ranked their role in the lives of victimized children as of medium importance, and this finding did not vary according to grade level taught or years of experience. Results can have important implications for future intervention and prevention of bullying behaviours and peer victimization in schools within the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".