The Resolution of Workplace Bullying Among Ontario Secondary School Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examined the ways that workplace bullying is resolved among Ontario secondary school teachers. It explored the ways that school administrators, union officials, secondary school teachers and the Ontario College of Teachers involved in claims understand related policies and procedures and deal with claims and identifies the factors that obstruct and facilitate resolution. It used Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (1979) and Berger and Luckman’s Social Construction of Reality theory (1967) as it’s conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Findings from this study revealed that society’s values, at the macro level, influence the ways that workplace bullying is resolved. Society’s focus on student well-being, and claims that involve prohibited grounds, physical or criminal elements affect the ways that related policies and procedures are addressed. Comparatively, claims of workplace bullying are less likely to be resolved between secondary school teachers regardless of Ontario’s Workplace Violence and Harassment legislation (2010). Findings also revealed that policies and procedures are understood differently at the meso and micro levels. Administrators understand policies with greater specificity compared to union officials or teachers involved with claims. Moreover, findings also revealed that administrators typically avoid claims or deal with them informally, the Ontario College of Teachers redirects claimants to employers, victims seek help from others, and accused tend to deny, blame, or resist mediation altogether; in contrast, union officials are largely supportive. Findings also revealed that several factors impede or facilitate resolution at all four levels of Bronfenbrenner’s model (1967).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".