Residential Care Aides’ Experiences of Workplace Incivility in Long-Term Care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to peer incivility and bullying potentially disrupts the respectful, collaborative workplace relationships essential to quality care provision in long-term care homes. This study critically examined the nature of peer incivility and bullying in residential care aides’ workplace relationships. Using critical ethnography, 100 hours of participant observation and 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted with residential care aides, licensed practical nurses, support staff and management in two, non-profit care homes in British Columbia, Canada. While residential care aides’ experiences of bullying were rare, peer incivility was pervasive, occurring on an almost daily basis. Two key themes, ‘gendered work environment’ and ‘seeking informal power and control’, reflect how residential care aides experienced and explained their uncivil encounters. Findings highlight the gendered, relationally aggressive nature of workplace mistreatment within this predominantly female workforce.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it