MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995795715 · doi:10.1080/13636820903180400

Negative interpersonal interactions in student training settings

2009· article· en· W1995795715 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia A. Ferris, Theresa J. B. Kline

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vocational Education and Training · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorPsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyInterpersonal relationshipClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies demonstrate that negative interpersonal interaction(s) (NII) such as bullying are frequent and harmful to individuals in workplace and higher education student settings. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the degree of perceived severity of NII varies by the status of the actor. The present study explored the moderating effect of actor status (supervisor or peer) on perceived severity (labeled ‘bother’) of experienced and witnessed NII, in workplace training settings, in a sample of students from professional Faculties including Education, Medicine, Nursing, and Social Work (N=68). The researchers hypothesised that NII experienced and witnessed from a supervisor toward a student would be associated with a greater degree of bother than NII experienced or witnessed from a peer toward a peer. Results showed that actor status played a significant role in predicting bother even after the effects of experienced and witnessed NII were taken into account. In following up on this finding, it was revealed that both peer and supervisor status predicted bother for those who had experienced NII whereas only peer status predicted bother for those who had witnessed NII. Finally, opposite to expectation, peer status demonstrated a stronger relationship to experienced NII than did supervisor status. Educators should be mindful of both peer and supervisor behaviours.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vocational Education and TrainingSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207