“I've never felt physically unsafe, but I've felt mentally and professionally unsafe”: Teaching Assistants' Affective Experiences with Safety and Student Incivility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study considered the affective experiences of graduate students employed as teaching assistants (TAs) at one Canadian university. Specifically, this work considered if TAs perceive their labour to be safe or unsafe, and why. It also examined the impact of campus culture and sexual violence on perceptions of safety. TAs hold unique perspectives of the institution, as they as both employees and students and there occupy a “liminal” space. This research examined how the unique institutional knowledge of TAs may be more effectively incorporated into institutional practices to improve campus safety for all members of the community. Utilizing a mixed method online survey, as well as semi-structured interviews, this study examined the myriad of experiences TAs may have while employed by the university. The results of this research indicated that TAs occupation of liminal spaces creates precarity and vulnerability, which places them are at risk of experiencing student incivility, harassment, and sexual and gender-based violence. The delegitimization of the TA role and a lack of institutional transparency around power increases TA vulnerability and encourages undergraduate violence towards TAs. Participants report feeling undertrained and unprepared to deal with student incivility and by extension create adaptative strategies to reduce friction with their students, usually in the form of unpaid emotional labour which causes undue harm and burnout. However, institutional support, both formal and informal, increased perceptions of safety for participants, demonstrating that cultural and social environments can be improved to more effectively prioritize the well-being of TAs.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".