MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624374054 · doi:10.1080/1756073x.2017.1336394

Immunity in Community: Clergy Experience of Bystander Decision Making in Clergy Workplace Harassment

2017· article· en· W2624374054 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Theology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBystander effectHarassmentChristian ministrySocial psychologyPsychologyNormativeAbandonment (legal)Construct (python library)CriminologySociologyPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used directed content analysis to extend Darley and Latané’s bystander decision making theory to the analysis of clergy workplace harassment. Bystander decision making theory, which was developed from analysis of bystander subjective experience in emergency incidents, was applied here to the target’s subjective experience in non-emergency incidents. Interviews with United Church of Canada ministry personnel (N = 10) were coded using bystander decision steps as pre-determined categories. Findings were analysed to construct a model of clergy workplace harassment and a bystander task list. Additional findings were discussed with reference to normative abandonment and theological reflection on the ecclesial and missiological consequences of bystander immunity from communal responsibility.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.357 · 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