How workplace bullying changes how women promote their health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Workplace bullying is a prevalent and costly form of abuse influencing women's health. The purpose of this study is to expand knowledge of how women care for their health after experiencing workplace bullying and to explore variation in that process. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative feminist grounded theory method was used to study a community sample of 40 adult women across three Canadian provinces. Findings Experiencing workplace bullying causes a disruption in women's health and this was identified as the central problem for women in this study. Women address health disruption using a three‐stage process the authors named “managing disruption” that involves protecting, mobilizing, and rebuilding. Women's efforts to care for health which they define broadly as including control over their lives are influenced by formal and informal support and by personal factors such as past experiences, perception of employability, values and beliefs, and relationship patterns. Research limitations/implications Longitudinal study would be useful to understand long‐term consequences and potentially helpful resolutions of workplace bullying. Whether men's perspectives on their experiences are similar could also be explored. Practical implications Increasing awareness of what workplace bullying is and how to manage it would contribute to diminishing its occurrence and its impact. Social implications Women need support and resources from workplace and healthcare professionals when they have experienced workplace bullying. Originality/value Few studies have explored women's experiences of caring for health during and after bullying. Interestingly, women reported adopting more balanced perspectives on work and life after their bullying experiences.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".