An examination of whether work culture influences victimization and harassment of federal correctional officers
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
The purpose of this paper was to examine possible factors that may contribute to workplace harassment for correctional officers employed with the Correctional Service of Canada by examining the results from the 2019 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES). An analysis of the results indicates that 36% of correctional officers reported harassment on the job. The most common types of harassment that correctional officers reported were offensive remarks, unfair treatment, being excluded or ignored, aggressive behaviour, personal attacks, and humiliation. With respect to the source of harassment, the findings indicate that supervisors and managers were the leading source of those engaging in harassment behaviours within CSC. Fear of reprisal was the most common reason reported for why correctional officers did not file a complaint of harassment. The most common operational and organizational stressors reported were not enough employees to do the work, pay or other compensation-related issues, lack of control or input in decision-making, competing or constantly changing priorities, lack of recognition, and lack of clear expectations. An analysis of CSC’s response to harassment revealed that current initiatives are ineffective and may perpetuate workplace harassment. Several recommendations are made on how CSC should address harassment going forward, such as utilizing human resources and establishing a complaint process that is free of conflict of interest and employs an external independent review body to oversee the process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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