ASSÉDIO MORAL NO TRABALHO: ESTADO DA ARTE E LACUNAS DE ESTUDOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Em virtude dos malefícios oriundos do assédio moral no trabalho e suas consequências deletérias na integridade física e psíquica dos trabalhadores, a temática merece atenção no âmbito dos estudos sociais e organizacionais. Realizou-se, assim, estudo bibliométrico de artigos em periódicos brasileiros relevantes nas áreas de Administração e Psicologia Social e do Trabalho datados de 2001 a outubro de 2016, além daqueles apresentados no congresso EnAnpad. Este estudo propicia um panorama da construção teórico-empírica sobre a temática de relevância social, indicando direções para futuras pesquisas. É preciso ampliar debates e estudos para o enfrentamento da violência moral a partir de olhares multidisciplinares, atuando de forma colaborativa. Desse modo, constatou-se a necessidade de fortalecimento do campo, para melhor compreensão do fenômeno, visto que o palco de sua ocorrência são justamente as organizações. Palavras-chave: Assédio moral; ambiente de trabalho; estado da arte; bibliometria; agenda de pesquisa.
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 | 0.060 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".