MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043001808 · doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12269

Joking behaviours and bullying from the perspective of Australian human resource professionals

2020· article· en· W3043001808 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's University
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsLegislationWorkplace bullyingPerspective (graphical)Resource (disambiguation)Public relationsHuman resource managementWork (physics)Human resourcesSociologyBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the views of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives on joking behaviours and the potential link to workplace bullying in Australia. Individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 10 HRPs and five employee (union) representatives. Contextual factors stemming from Australian culture and historic characteristics of work in this country are discussed. The findings indicate that the legal framework – specifically, the definition of bullying and related legislation such as health and safety laws and equal employment opportunity legislation – is key for HRPs in establishing whether joking behaviours transgress into bullying. Implications for HRPs including ‘boundary’ management of joking behaviours are discussed and some ideas for future research are presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.295 · 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