Applying a person-oriented approach to workplace aggression: Implications for employee emotional well-being
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
Abstract Using a person-oriented approach with a broad sample of 200 employees across several sectors, we identified four victim subgroups sharing similar configurations of frequency and severity of aggression: high–high (high levels of frequency and severity; 15%), moderate–moderate (moderate levels of frequency and severity; 15%), high–low (high frequency but low severity; 26.5%), and low–low (lowest levels of frequency and severity; 43%). Further, we examined the relationship between victim groups, social demographics, and victim disposition. The results showed that women, young, and lower-tenured employees are at risk of belonging to the high–high victim group. In addition, employees with high negative affect and psychopathy traits are at risk of belonging to the high–high victim group. Drawing upon learned helplessness theory, we examined whether victim groups differed concerning internalizing problems. Results suggest that high–high group victims experienced the highest anxiety, loss of confidence, and social dysfunction, whereas low–low group members experienced the lowest levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it