MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237062371 · doi:10.1007/978-981-13-0218-3_8

Regulation as Intervention: How Regulatory Design Can Affect Practices and Behaviours in the Workplace

2021· book-chapter· en· W4237062371 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Lippel, Rachel Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment/Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment · 2021
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Intervention (counseling)HarassmentFunction (biology)State (computer science)Public relationsRegulatory focus theoryPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the ways in which regulatory measures affect workplace practices that contribute to or impede the development of workplace bullying. It begins with an examination of the concept of regulation, looking at regulation by the state, as well as by non-state actors that perform a regulatory function. In the second part, to illustrate the concept of regulation as an intervention, we will draw on experiences from the implementation of the legal regime in Québec to show how a regulatory regime can lead to the mobilization of different categories of actors to perform different types of activities in and outside the workplace. The third part of this chapter provides a synthesis of the issues that need to be discussed in the choice of regulatory instruments, to ensure that the legal environment promotes practices that are known to have a positive impact on the workplace and concretely contribute to the reduction of the causes of workplace bullying and harassment.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment/Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassmentSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207