The use of technology and electronic media in adolescent dating violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\nElectronic communication and social media have dramatically changed the way in which individuals communicate with one another. Through this shift, they have opened the doors for inappropriate and damaging behaviour to take place. Cyberbullying occurs when the internet is continuously used to insult or intimidate a person or persons in order to hurt them in a deliberate manner (Valkenburg et. al., 2010). In adolescent dating relationships, the online environment facilitates the way in which individuals who are or were dating continue to correspond. This closer proximity between individuals, however, enables abusive and controlling behaviours within these relationships to occur outside of face-to-face contact. This study examined adolescents’ perceptions of the severity of cyberbullying, motives, and the point in a dating relationship at which it is likely to become most severe. A mixed methodology was utilized within this study, using a sample of 70 grade 12 students at a high school in southwestern Ontario. It was found that cyberbullying behaviours are most likely to occur upon termination of a dating relationship, revenge is perceived as a common motive, and the severity of cyberbullying tends to be minimized.\nKeywords: Cyberbullying, bullying, gender, grade, age, violence, dating, adolescent, mixed-methods, focus groups
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".