Examining Risk of Workplace Violence in Canada: A Sex/Gender-Based Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Workplace violence (WPV) is a serious issue, resulting in significant negative health outcomes. Understanding sex/gender differences in risk of WPV has important implications for primary prevention activities. Methods: Utilizing two waves of the Canadian General Social Survey on Victimization (N = 27,643), we examined the likelihood of WPV, and sub-categories of WPV, for women relative to men. Using a sex/gender analytical approach, a series of logistic regression models examined how the associations between being a woman and each of the outcomes changed upon adjustment for work and socio-demographic characteristics. Results: After adjustment for work hours, women were at more than twice the risk of WPV compared to men (odds ratio = 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.52-2.95). Adjustment for work characteristics attenuated, but did not eliminate this risk. Differences in associations were observed across sub-categories of violence, with adjustment for work characteristics attenuating sex/gender differences in physical WPV, but having minimal impact on sex/gender differences in sexual WPV. Conclusions: Work characteristics explain a substantial proportion of the sex/gender differences in risk of physical WPV. However, even after adjustment for work characteristics, women still showed an elevated risk relative to men for almost all types of violence (as defined by nature of the violence, sex of the perpetrator, and relationship to the perpetrator) examined in this study. Future investigations should examine why these differences between women and men remain, even within similar occupational contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".