MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133554890 · doi:10.1037/a0020520

Comparing perceived injustices from supervisors and romantic partners as predictors of aggression.

2010· article· en· W2133554890 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryne E. Dupré, Julian Barling, Nick Turner, Chris Stride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyInjusticeAggressionSocial psychologyAngerInterpersonal relationshipSupervisorInterpersonal communicationMultilevel modelDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the predictive effects of perceived injustice in two different interpersonal relationships (i.e., working relationship with a supervisor, romantic relationship with a partner) on aggression enacted in those relationships, we computed a series of multilevel regressions on 62 heterosexual couples with all 124 partners employed part-time and working for different supervisors. Higher levels of perceived supervisor injustice predicted higher supervisor-directed aggression, whereas higher levels of perceived partner injustice predicted lower supervisor-directed aggression. An interaction between perceived partner injustice and anger predicted higher levels of partner-directed aggression. Implications and recommendations for future research on the relationship specificity of perceived injustice 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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