Status differences in interpersonal strain and job resources at work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore how status differences relate to strained working relationships with co-workers and clients. Two statuses, gender and occupation, are examined using data from veterinarians and animal health technologists (AHTs). Competing perspectives regarding exposure to stressful relationships and access and effectiveness of work-related resources are considered. Design/methodology/approach An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design is used that combines quantitative survey data with open-ended qualitative data. The survey data are used to examine how interpersonal strain and access to work-related resources vary by status. The qualitative data are used to illustrate how strain is experienced by these workers and aids in interpreting the quantitative findings. Findings Status is linked to interpersonal client strain and access to resources. Challenging work is widely available to all three groups, but is more beneficial in reducing higher status veterinarians’ client strain. Autonomy is a scarce resource for the lowest status group (female AHTs), yet appears effective in reducing co-worker strain for everyone. Unexpectedly, work overload and market concerns appear to aggravate work-related strain and greater numbers of the lowest status group exacerbates interpersonal tensions with clients. Originality/value This paper contributes by examining stressful interactions experienced by two occupations who work side-by-side in the same employment settings, but who vary significantly by gender representation and occupational status. The authors argue that in addition to gender and occupational status, the organizational health of employing clinics and the feminization of veterinary practice may offer insights into how status differences are related to interpersonal conflict experienced in these work places.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".