MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099427454 · doi:10.1177/1049732310369804

Workplace Bullying in Health Care Affects the Meaning of Work

2010· article· en· W2099427454 on OpenAlex
Judith MacIntosh, Judith Wuest, Marilyn Gray, Marcella Cronkhite

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Work (physics)Grounded theoryHealth careProcess (computing)PsychologyQualitative researchNursingSocial psychologySociologyMedicinePsychotherapistComputer scienceEngineeringSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our purpose in this grounded theory study was to explore the impact of workplace bullying (WPB) on women working in health care. We analyzed interviews with 21 women, professionals and nonprofessionals. The women experienced a change in their meaning of work (MOW) when they had experienced WPB, and they addressed this change through a process we called the shifting meaning of work. This process has three stages. The first, developing insight, involves recognizing causes of changed MOW as external. In the second stage, resisting, women defend against changed MOW by sustaining acceptable MOW and work performances, and by confronting causes. In the final stage, rebuilding, women try to adapt and modify approaches to work by coming to terms, adjusting work attitudes, and investing in self. We identified implications of this process for managing health and work issues with women, health care providers, and employers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it