MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107867088 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.987

Workplace aggression in teenage part-time employees.

2006· article· en· W2107867088 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryne E. Dupré, Michelle Inness, Catherine E. Connelly, Julian Barling, Colette Hoption

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAggressionPsychologyInjusticeSocial psychologyInterpersonal relationshipInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlClinical psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among adult employees, interpersonal injustice and abusive supervision predict aggression toward supervisors at work. The aim of this study was to assess whether similar relationships exist among teenage employees and, further, whether teenagers' reasons for working moderate these relationships. Multiple regression analyses on data from 119 teenage employees showed that financial and personal fulfillment reasons for working moderate the impact of interpersonal injustice and abusive supervision on aggression directed at workplace supervisors. These findings contribute to the understanding of workplace aggression by demonstrating that (a) teenagers engage in this workplace behavior, (b) the predictors are similar to those of adult aggression, and (c) reasons for working play a moderating role among this particular cohort. The possible long-term consequences of teenagers' use of aggression at work are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PsychologySame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207