MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954842363 · doi:10.1177/1360780419846507

Workplace Harassment Interventions and Labour Process Theory: A Critical Realist Synthesis of the Literature

2019· article· en· W2954842363 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Research Online · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHarassmentPsychological interventionSociologyEmpirical researchComplaintIntervention (counseling)Public relationsSocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workplace harassment, from a labour process theoretic perspective, is a consequence of the convergence of several historical trends that affect the way work is organized under contemporary capitalism. On this view, interventions such as communication skills training, complaint procedures, and workplace policies have limited chance of eliminating harassment in the workplace. However, there is minimal research identifying, testing, and refining the theories accounting for how and why particular interventions work and under what circumstances. Our critical realist evaluation of the workplace harassment intervention literature responds to this gap. The mid-range theory of workplace harassment interventions presented in this article derives from the synthesized literature, augmented by Habermasian theory of social transformation to elaborate intervention mechanisms as lifeworld impulses. The provisional propositions of the mid-range theory are offered to inspire their empirical testing for the theory’s further refinement.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.322 · 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