Crossover of workplace aggression on to partner's alcohol intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the crossover of workplace aggression experienced by members of dual‐earner couples on alcohol intake of the partner Design/methodology/approach Cross‐sectional community data come from the 1998 Quebec Health and Social Survey containing a sub‐sample of 5,778 individuals nested in 2,889 dual‐earner couples. Data on alcohol intake, workplace aggression (physical, psychological, sexual), decision authority, working hours, irregular work schedule, marital strains, gender and age are gathered from self‐report questionnaires. Each member of the couple will answer the questionnaire. Findings The results show that being the target of workplace aggression is associated with low‐risk (OR=1.27, 95%CI=1.10‐1.46) and high‐risk drinking (OR=1.78, 95%CI=1.44‐2.20). Indicative of a crossover effect, partner workplace aggression victimization (OR=1.30, 95%CI=1.05‐1.62) is associated with high‐risk drinking Research limitations/implications Victims of workplace aggression and their immediate relatives might be supported to avoid adverse alcohol‐related problems. Organizations need to pay more attention to the problem of workplace aggression in their occupational health and safety programs Originality/value Using multilevel multinomial regression models, this study highlights the complexities of work‐family dynamics and of the crossover effect of workplace aggression into the lives and alcohol intake behavior of dual‐earner partners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".