MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414371526 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcaf192

Experiences of in-person violence and cyberviolence against child welfare workers in Canada

2025· article· en· W4414371526 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cheryl Regehr, Rachael Lefebvre, Barbara Fallon, Faye Mishna, Jeffrey Schiffer, Mary Baginsky, Ravit Alfandari

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWelfareDistressChild abusePerceptionSocial workSocial WelfareDomestic violenceOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies conducted in countries across the world have consistently demonstrated high rates of in-person violence towards social workers, and particularly social workers engaged in challenging areas of practice such as child welfare. More recently, research has focused on the cyberworld as a new avenue for abuse against workers. Employing an online survey, this research sought to compare the experiences and effects of in-person violence and cyberviolence among child welfare workers in Canada; and to better understand the influences of organizational factors on levels of distress experienced by workers. Respondents reported high levels of exposure to in-person violence, as well as high levels of abuse and threats through digital means. Among various forms of in-person violence, threats were associated with the highest level of traumatic stress symptoms. Other factors that were associated with traumatic stress were perceptions of organizational support and experiences of burnout, particularly emotional exhaustion, which was the best predictor of traumatic stress scores related to both in-person and cyberviolence. Given that cyberviolence is a new area of study, further research is necessary to more fully understand the ability of the workplace environment to mitigate harmful aspects of this recent form of workplace violence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207