Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual behavior at work (e.g., sexual jokes and propositions) has been largely portrayed as offensive and harmful. The current research represents the first studies to test whether this is typically the case. Study 1 surveyed manufacturing and social service workers (N = 238) about their psychological well-being, work withdrawal, and exposure to sexual behavior at work. Respondents indicated how often they were exposed to different sexual behaviors and how much they enjoyed or were bothered by them. Study 2 surveyed university staff (N = 1,004) about their psychological well-being, drug use, feelings of being valued at work, and exposure to sexual behavior at work. Fifty-eight percent of employees in Study 1 were exposed to sexual behavior in the past 2 years; 40% of employees in Study 2 were exposed to sexual behavior in the past year. Some women and many men reported enjoying sexual behavior at work. Despite this, exposure to sexual behavior at work predicted negative employee work and psychological well-being, even for employees who said they enjoyed the experience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it