MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103278035 · doi:10.1177/0950017014563105

Workplace bullying: exploring an emerging framework

2015· article· en· W2103278035 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWork Employment and Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionWorkplace bullyingPhenomenonSociologyPower (physics)Workplace violenceFocus (optics)Social psychologyPoison controlPublic relationsPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsEpistemologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, emphasis within the literature on workplace bullying has been on gathering empirical data with a focus on individual acts, actors (targets and perpetrators) and consequences. This analytical focus has resulted in an understanding of workplace bullying as fundamentally an individualized phenomenon. This article begins with a brief discussion of the theorization that currently predominates in the workplace violence and bullying literature and the outcomes of this theorizing. An emerging framework, conceptualizing violence broadly, is then outlined for understanding violence and bullying. Through this framework, it is argued that the discourse and research on workplace violence – in all its forms – must explore explicit connections between these social phenomena and the interrelatedness of all forms of oppression. Workplace violence must be examined within a framework where power cannot be separated from social dimensions within and outside the workplace.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.209 · 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