Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many students reading the book will have previously taken Communication Psychology \nand will have read the companion OER, Psychology, Communication and the Canadian Workplace. If \nyou did not take: Communication Psychology, you may find it helpful to look at this \nresource for a general introduction to many of the topics that we will be discussing in this book. \nThe course learning objectives for this course are as follows: \n1. Identify factors that contribute to conflict in the workplace. \n2. Name factors that lead to positive professional identity and productive group dynamics. \n3. Describe different conflict styles. \n4. Discuss their own interpersonal competencies and areas in need of improvement regarding \nconflict management in the workplace. \n5. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of conflict management styles and strategies. \n6. Analyze hypothetical/case study conflict scenarios for the workplace. \n7. Implement strategies to manage/resolve conflict in the workplace. \n8. Analyze workplace conflict prevention and management policies. \nThese learning objectives were formed in consultation with local employers and stakeholders in \nLondon, ON. Employers indicated that it was desirable for graduates entering the workforce to have \nmore explicit training in conflict management. While employees do not usually need to be trained \nnegotiators or legal experts, it is helpful for students to have the skills and knowledge to navigate both \nthe mundane occurrences of conflict in the workplace (e.g., the coworker with a difficult personality) \nand more serious incidences of conflict at work (e.g., bullying, harassment, and violence). We will learn a \nbit about federal and provincial legislation, organizational policies and the formal conflict process. \nHowever, the focus will be on the individual, and how each one of us can play a role in making the \nworkplace a safe and functional environment. \nThroughout the book, you will be encouraged to engage in critical self-assessment and case studies. \nThese exercises will provide you with the opportunity to assess potential conflict situations, recognize \nyour emotions, communicate assertively, and manage conflict with integrity and professionalism
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.022 |
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".