ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhancing social science research on cyberbullying through human machine collaboration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cyberbullying (CB) has emerged as a growing concern among adolescents, with nearly 10% of European children affected monthly and almost half experiencing it at least once. Unlike traditional bullying, CB thrives in digital environments where anonymity and impunity are prevalent. Despite its increasing prevalence, understanding the causal mechanisms behind CB remains challenging due to the limitations of conventional statistical methods, which often rely on correlations and are prone to spurious associations. In this paper, we introduce a novel human-machine consensus framework for causal discovery, aimed at supporting social scientists in unraveling the complex dynamics of CB. We leverage recent advances in data-driven causal inference, particularly the use of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), to identify and interpret causal relationships from observational data. Our approach integrates automatic causal discovery algorithms with expert knowledge, addressing the limitations of both purely algorithmic and purely expert-driven methods, and allows for the creation of a model ensemble estimation of the causal effects. To enhance interpretability and usability, we advocate for the use of Probabilistic Graphical Causal Models (PGCMs), or Bayesian Networks, which combine probabilistic reasoning with graphical representation. This hybrid methodology not only mitigates cognitive biases and inconsistencies in expert input but also fosters transparency and critical reflection in model construction. Cyberbullying serves as a compelling case study where ethical constraints preclude experimental designs, highlighting the value of interpretable, expert-informed causal models for guiding policy and intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.