Canadian Perspectives on Conceptualizing and Responding to Workplace Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although archival data suggests that workplace violence existed in the 1920s, the topic has only begun to receive worthy attention. Despite the efforts of academic pioneers in the 1980s to raise topical awareness, it was not until a series of infamously tragic events in the 1990s that workplace violence became a subject of discussion. This article offers a Canadian perspective on the emerging conceptualization with implications for legislative and organizational responses. The necessity of emphasizing prevention and reaction in a comprehensive model that addresses workplace violence is underscored, particularly before benign actions potentiate into more serious forms of violence. A hierarchy of legislatively informed prevention initiatives is provided, as is a continuum of workplace violence that emphasizes the recognition of psychosocial acts. The relationship between a well workplace and a violence-free workplace is illustrated thematically throughout.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".