Do adolescent employees perceive the risks of workplace violence? A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Adolescents are at risk for workplace violence (WPV) exposure but may not perceive it as a risk. The purpose of this study was to explore adolescent employees’ perceptions of safety from WPV. Methods: Using a qualitative dominant mixed methods design, 30 adolescent employees were recruited to complete a 36-item survey and individual interviews. Analyses included descriptive statistical techniques for survey responses, conventional content analysis for qualitative interview data, and mixed data analyses to explore differences in qualitative themes based on WPV exposure and gender. Results: Participants expressed mostly positive perceptions of safety despite 50% (n = 15) reporting WPV exposure. WPV exposure and gender did not appear to be associated with overall perceptions of safety but may be associated with safety in numbers. Most males had positive perceptions of safety. Conclusions: Adolescent employees want and deserve WPV training. Recommendations for nurses and other health professionals to assist adolescents with addressing health and safety issues in the workplace are provided.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".