MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073451103 · doi:10.1177/0886260510383027

Violence Against Teachers: Prevalence and Consequences

2010· article· en· W2073451103 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin S. Douglas, David Lyon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsWorkplace violencePoison controlPsychologyMental healthDating violenceClinical psychologyDomestic violenceMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data collected from 731 teachers were used to examine the consequences of violence directed toward teachers while in the workplace. Analyses showed that the majority of respondents (n = 585, 80.0%) had experienced school-related violence—broadly defined—at one point in their careers. Serious violence (actual, attempted, or threatened physical violence) was less common, but still common enough to be of concern (n = 202, 27.6%). Violence predicted physical and emotional effects, as well as teaching-related functioning. In addition, a model with fear as a potential mediator revealed that both fear and violence were independently predictive of these negative outcomes. Finally, analyses showed that, in general, women reported higher levels of physical symptoms compared to men. We discuss the implications of violence against teachers in terms of personal consequences and the implications for mental health professionals working in an educational setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations216
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207