Incivility and bullying in the workplace: causes, consequences and corrective actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace incivility and bullying are common and are on the rise in Canada. Workplace incivility has a contextual definition that can include more minor behaviours such as disrespect,taking credit from others, and belittling; it can also include major behaviours such as dehumanizing, bullying, violating basic rights, and engaging in corrupt or criminal actions. Bullying and harassment in the workplace are defined in legislation and carry criminal, civil, and regulatory consequences when they occur. Workplace bullying has a significant impact on workers that includes reduced work effort, decreased performance, absenteeism, and high attrition. The effects are even more significant on women workers, who experience a loss of self after workplace bullying occurs. Workplace leaders have an important role in discouraging incivility and taking appropriate corrective action when it occurs. Leaders set the tone of theworkplace. Therefore, our objective is to comprehensively explore the causes and consequences of workplace incivility, the role of leadership in causing and mitigating incivility, and strategiesthat leaders and followers can employ to prevent incivility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".