MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perceived injustice in injured workers: analysis of public responses to an injured worker who took Workers’ Compensation Board employees hostage

2012· article· en· W1929245530 on OpenAlexaff
Cary A. Brown, Geoff Bostick, Jeannette Lim, Douglas P. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticePsychologyNarrativeCompensation (psychology)Social psychologyEconomic JusticeInterviewAngerEmpathyPublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Injured workers' perceived injustice can contribute to retaliatory, aggressive actions. Research also shows a relationship between persistent pain, anger and aggressive, maladaptive coping. AIMS: We took the unique opportunity afforded by a workers compensation board (WCB) hostage taking incident to address four questions: (i) What contemporary values, beliefs, and potential behaviours about the WCB system are reflected in the online postings of other claimants (or family members of claimants) in response to the hostage taking incident? (ii) To what degree do the narratives of people who posted online (PWP) in response to this incident, demonstrate the theme of perceived injustice and support retaliatory actions? (iii) How accurate is the information relayed by PWP about the WCB system where the hostage taking occurred? (iv) What is the quality and the public utility of the information this WCB makes available to the public through on-line posting? METHODS: We thematically analysed comments posted on a national news website in response to the hostage-taking. We focused on posted narratives from people who stated that they had personal involvement with WCB. We also assessed the accuracy of the comments about WCB made in these narratives against the information available on the WCB website. A standardized assessment tool was used to determine the readability and accessibility of the WCB website. FINDINGS: Emergent themes were: retribution, perceived systemic mistreatment, justice/injustice, empathy, disbelief, and loss. There were many inaccurate beliefs about the Workers' Compensation Board. The overall quality of readability and accessibility of the website was low. CONCLUSION: Narratives indicated perceived procedural injustice attributed to a flawed and uncaring compensation system. Inaccurate beliefs about WCB and poor quality of the public website may have contributed to suffering, miscommunication and perceptions of unjust, systemic mistreatment. Findings support a relationship between perceived injustice and aggressive retaliatory action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Caring SciencesSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207