Unexpected employee location is associated with injury during robberies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of employees are victims of violent crimes at work every year, particularly those in the retail industry, who are frequent targets of robbery. Why are some employees injured while others escape from these incidents physically unharmed? Departing from prevailing models of workplace violence, which focus on the static characteristics of perpetrators, victims, and work environments, we examine why and when injuries during robberies occur. Our multimethod investigation of convenience-store robberies sought evidence from detailed coding of surveillance videos and matched archival data, preregistered experiments with formerly incarcerated individuals and customer service personnel, and a 3-y longitudinal intervention study in the field. While standard retail-industry safety protocols encourage employees to be out from behind the cash register area to be safer, we find that robbers are significantly more likely to injure or kill employees who are located there (versus behind the cash register area) when a robbery begins. A 3-y field study demonstrates that changing the safety training protocol-through providing employees with a behavioral script to follow should a robbery begin when they are on the sales floor-was associated with a significantly lower rate of injury during these robberies. Our research establishes the importance of understanding the interactive dynamics of workplace violence, crime, and conflict.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".