Mobbing in the Institutional Work Environment: The Example of Polish Prosecutors’ Offices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The survey is part of an identified research gap, which is the issue of mobbing behavior in the environment of common organizational units of the Polish prosecutor’s office. Data was collected by asking 1,891 people (which constituted 12.6% of all employees) in an anonymous survey, both prosecutors and assessors, as well as administrative staff, at all levels of the Polish prosecutor’s office. This is the first study of its kind in Poland and one of the few in general that addresses the institutional legal community. The findings confirm the fact that incidents of harassment at work are more frequent in organizations where duties are routine. The phenomenon of mobbing in the Polish prosecutor’s office is present and is not only of a marginal, incidental nature. Over a quarter of interviewees experienced at work behavior that falls under the statutory definition of mobbing. As expected, the predominant type of professional relationship in which mobbing occurs is a subordinate professional relationship (73% of cases), although in as many as 12% of cases mobbing occurred in equivalent relationships. The results also show the disturbing fact that this type of behavior is not reported (as many as 68% of the mobbed); the main reason being the lack of belief in the effectiveness of such actions and the lack of faith that formal disclosure will change anything. In the light of the facts learned, ways to overcome the identified negative phenomena are given as recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".