Work, Gender, and Sexual Harassment on the Frontlines of Commercial Travel: A Cross-Sectional Study of Flight Crew Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scale and scope of experience of sexual harassment at work among male and female flight attendants was examined. Flight attendants are a predominantly female workforce with an occupational heritage of female and male sexualized stereotypes. Data represented perception and prevalence of sexual harassment related to hostile work environment among 8,700 North American (U.S. and Canada) and 1,887 United Kingdom (UK) flight attendants in the Flight Attendant Health Study. Sexual harassment, mostly from passengers, pilots, and coworkers, was reported by 26% of North American flight attendants and 11% of UK flight attendants. Yet, 61% of UK flight attendants experienced unwanted sexual behaviors, pointing to possible underreporting of the sexual harassment problem. Sexually offensive behaviors received variable labeling as sexual harassment depending on gender of the victim and perpetrator profile. Sexual harassment is a potentially underreported workplace problem for flight attendants with underreporting resulting from gender-specific differences in individual perceptions. Understanding these differences is vital to addressing sexual harassment and the concomitant health risks. Traditional client and customer attitudes might lead to rose-colored victims’ judgment, especially in the case of customer service jobs involving emotional labor. Our results provide new information to guide future research regarding well-being of this understudied group of service employees.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".