MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534583150 · doi:10.1108/pijpsm-11-2014-0116

Law enforcement officers and Employee Assistance Programs

2015· article· en· W1534583150 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing An International Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerLaw enforcementEmployee assistanceMental healthOriginalityPsychologyWork (physics)EnforcementDomestic violenceOccupational safety and healthMental illnessPublic relationsPoison controlBusinessSuicide preventionApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The toll of the stresses of policing on officers’ physical and mental health and on their individual work and family functioning has been well documented in the literature. Given the well-established consequences of work-related stress on law enforcement, it becomes important to understand how officers are utilizing institutional support systems. Specifically, the purpose of this paper is to elucidate the relationship between officers and Employee Assistant Programs (EAPs). Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from surveys attached to an online officer training targeting domestic violence in law enforcement families in a large southern state. Findings – A total of n =934 participants were retained for analyses. Few respondents (16.2 percent) reported accessing their EAPs. Totally, 56.4 percent reported knowing enough about their EAP and how to access it; 33 percent of participants would not use their EAPs for domestic violence concerns. No significant differences among officers who did and did not access their EAPs for workplace stress, posttraumatic stress, alcohol use, or domestic violence were identified. Significant differences in alcohol use, posttraumatic stress, and operational stress were identified in those who reported not knowing enough about how to access their EAP. Practical implications – Concrete suggestions are offered to help increase officers’ knowledge and understanding of the importance of mental health and EAPs. Agencies should consider a more comprehensive approach to mental health to ensure that officers get the help they need. Originality/value – Very little is known about the relationship that law enforcement officers have with EAP services. This study sheds light on some important differences in work-related stress, stress reactions, and knowledge and familiarity with EAP services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it