MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410103588 · doi:10.1097/cnj.0000000000000289

Surviving (Even Thriving?) in a Toxic Workplace

2016· article· en· W2410103588 on OpenAlexaff
Paul White, Kathy Schoonover‐Shoffner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Christian Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingDysfunctional familyWork (physics)Public relationsWork environmentSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringJob satisfactionSocial sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anything toxic is poisonous and harmful-including a toxic workplace. Surveys of hundreds of individuals and organizations reveal three primary areas that are common in unhealthy work environments: sick systems, toxic leaders, and dysfunctional colleagues. This article draws from research and offers practical steps on how to survive, if not change and thrive, in toxic workplaces.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Christian NursingSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207