The relationship between organizational justice and workplace aggression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a discussion of the links between organizational justice and workplace aggression. BACKGROUND: Managers have been identified as key players in implementing and maintaining an organizational culture of trust and justice. Employees who perceive themselves to be victims of injustice may rebel, using various means to 'punish' the source of the injustice. DATA SOURCES: Literature review of publications in English and French from the early 1960 to 2009, including books, was conducted. Bibliographic databases searched for journal articles were Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Current Content, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science. DISCUSSION: The work environment and roles of nursing managers have changed considerably in the last 20 years, resulting in challenging working conditions for nursing managers. These can have an impact on their ability to create a trusting and fair culture, and can mean that they themselves be considered victims of organizational injustice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The failure of many re-engineering projects has been linked to a lack of consideration of the impact of perception of justice when implementing change. In addition, perception of organizational justice has the potential to influence many organizational outcomes, such as perception of respect and trust. As justice is a founding principle of biomedical ethics, principles of justice, equity and fairness must be upheld in practice in accordance with the requirements of professional codes of ethics. CONCLUSION: The concept of justice is linked to the founding principles of biomedical ethics, and these must be upheld in order to practise in accordance with professional codes of ethics and conduct.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".