MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106420027 · doi:10.1177/0018726704045766

Social Power, Social Status and Perceptual Similarity of Workplace Victimization: A Social Network Analysis of Stratification

2004· article· en· W2106420027 on OpenAlex
Kai Lamertz, Karl Aquino

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

VenueHuman Relations · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipSocial stratificationSocial psychologyPerceptionPsychologySocial network (sociolinguistics)SociologyPolitical scienceSocial mediaSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops and tests a comprehensive social structural model of social power and status effects on victimization in organizations. Victimization focuses on the extent to which individuals perceive themselves to be the target of negative or aggressive behaviors by others. The conceptual framework elucidates how formal and informal status differences associated with access to social powers in three different social networks are related to victimization perceptions. Using dyads as the unit of analysis in a sample of government employees, we find that asymmetric relationships between two actors in the friendship and advice networks, and structural equivalence in the advice and dislike networks are associated with perceptual agreement. The results suggest that stratification in a social system may create the context in which victimization thrives because it affects access to informal forms of social power.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.305 · 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