Perceptions of Unfairness in the Management of Bullying Complaints: Exploring the Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study aimed to examine why some bullied workers submitted compensable injury claims for psychological injury after they had made a workplace bullying grievance, and others did not. This study was carried out using a mixed methodology. Forty-four participants who had complained about bullying at work completed a survey about their experiences, and 31 were interviewed. A thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Those participants who submitted workers’ compensation claims were found to be significantly more depressed than those who did not submit workers’ compensation claims, although no significant differences were found between the anxiety and stress scores of all participants. Results also indicated that participants who submitted a workers’ compensation claim perceived less organisational justice in the way their complaint of bullying was managed than those participants who did not submit a claim. These results were endorsed by the qualitative aspects of the study where themes of frustration and unfairness were closely linked with the decision to submit a workers’ compensation claim. This is one of the few studies that have examined the effect of an organisation’s response to workplace bullying allegations on an employee’s decision to claim workers’ compensation for psychological injury.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".