Counterproductive Work Behavior and Conflict: Merging Complementary Domains
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
Abstract Scholarship on counterproductive work behavior ( CWB ) and related constructs (e.g., deviance, bullying, harassment, aggression, incivility, mobbing, revenge) has advanced the understanding of the factors that drive employees to engage in harmful actions at work and illuminated the effects of such behavior on individual, group, and organizational outcomes. Despite the many parallels between CWB and conflict processes as well as scholars' calls for better integration, there has been surprisingly little cross‐fertilization between these areas. Accordingly, the goal of this special issue is to provide an outlet for research and theory that have investigated CWB with a conflict lens. In this overview of the special issue, I begin by briefly describing the nature of CWB and possible reasons for the lack of integration with conflict research. I then provide an overview of the articles in this special issue and conclude with a synthesis and suggested future research questions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it