Abusive interactions and burnout: Examining occupation, gender, and the mediating role of community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two studies examined the association of gender and occupational group (nursing versus non-nursing) with perceived risk of abuse (sexual harassment and verbal and physical abuse) as well as the relationship of perceived abuse risk with burnout and sense of community. Study 1, comprising of two settings (tertiary care hospital, N = 3,062; psychiatric hospital, N = 383), found gender and occupational group associated with perceived risk of abuse (women felt greater risk than men; nurses felt greater risk than non-nurses). It also found a gender/occupational group interaction. Study 2, conducted at an Irish tertiary care hospital (N = 892), found nurses felt at greater risk for all three types of abuse than did non-nurses. Further, women perceived themselves at greater risk for sexual harassment and verbal abuse than did men; the study found no gender difference regarding physical abuse. The analysis identified a gender/occupational group interaction for sexual harassment. The study considers methods of reducing perceived risk in regard to the research literature on abuse at work.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".