Holofotes sobre o sorrateiro gaslighting misógino
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: discutir a aplicação de conceito de gaslightingmisógino nas relações de trabalho, estabelecer seus elementos caracterizadores e o modo como ocorre no ambiente empresarial. Estado da arte: empresas investem somas consideráveis para encontrar e reter talentos. Contudo, parte desse investimento se perde com práticas de assédio moral, entre elas, o gaslighting misógino. Mulheres vítimas desse gaslighting – entendido como a manipulação de chefes, que gera desequilíbrio nas funcionárias – tendem a não se desenvolver na empresa ou a pedir demissão. Originalidade: a pesquisa mostra a importância de adotar um conceito de gaslighting adaptado ao ambiente empresarial, não restrito à prova de comprometimento da sanidade mental, como definido pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça. O estudo também consegue caracterizar toda a dinâmica do gaslighting misógino, para facilitar a identificação de sua ocorrência. Impactos: a pesquisa ajuda funcionários, gestores e membros do Poder Judiciário a compreender o processo do gaslighting misógino nas relações de trabalho e apresenta recomendações para lidar com esse tipo de assédio.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.004 |
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".