Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the workplace bullying literature through different paradigmatic lenses. To date, the workplace bullying literature has been dominated by the functionalist perspective, which currently represents the pervading paradigmatic approach in organizational research. The author destabilizes the functionalist approach by examining the workplace bullying literature through three alternative paradigms, namely, interpretivism, critical management theory, and postmodernism. This provides an illustration of the different ways in which workplace bullying can be perceived, understood, and researched. Moreover, because alternative paradigmatic lenses draw upon varying theoretical and methodological approaches, paradigmatic analysis can offer a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. The author uses these lenses to ground workplace bullying in paradigmatically driven theoretical frameworks, while using these theoretical frameworks to propose research questions that can direct us toward gaining a more composite body of scholarship.
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 | 0.056 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".