Effect of Gender Roles and Workplace Violence on the Professional Quality of Life and Wellbeing at Work Among Child Protection Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to workplace violence puts child protection workers at risk for adverse occupational outcomes. While previous studies have identified protective and risk factors, individual differences in gender roles have yet to be explored. Moving beyond sex, the present study aims to examine the ways in which gender roles influence exposure to workplace violence, professional quality of life, and wellbeing at work among child protection workers. A randomized sample stratified by sex of 301 Canadian child protection workers (male: 15.6%, female: 84.4%) completed validated questionnaires of gender roles, professional quality of life, and wellbeing at work. We assessed mean differences using analyses of covariances controlling for clinical experience and type of work. We then assessed the moderating effect of gender roles on other variables through hierarchical multiple linear regressions. Androgyny (high masculinity and high femininity) was associated with higher scores on positive indicators of professional quality of life and wellbeing at work. However, gender roles showed no significant moderating effect on the relationship between exposure to violence, professional quality of life, and wellbeing at work. Results suggest that androgyny could be related to potential psychosocial benefits for child protection workers.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".