MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082180924 · doi:10.1027//0227-5910.21.3.126

Education and Debriefing: Strategies for Preventing Crises in Crisis-Line Volunteers

2000· review· en· W2082180924 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

VenueCrisis · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingFeelingCompassionCompassion fatiguePsychologyCoping (psychology)Social psychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPolitical scienceBurnout

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telephone crisis lines offer an important service to individuals in crisis. The accessibility as well as a lack of other means of support leads many individuals to call the line. The role of the volunteer is to listen and support the caller as well as provide information and referrals to other agencies. Agencies are presented with a high turnover of volunteers and are then faced with the task of recruiting and training replacements. Volunteers are often exposed to horrific accounts of human pain and suffering which may affect their personal thoughts, feelings, beliefs and actions and influence the decision to quit. Compassion fatigue is one term used for this inherent "cost of caring." Many factors contribute to this cost including the nature of crisis calls, the repeat caller, and personal coping mechanisms. Educating and debriefing the volunteer are two strategies that may prevent the onset of compassion fatigue and volunteer resignation. Debriefing is viewed as an effective strategy for volunteers as it has been found to be successfull in assisting other helpers in many different contexts to cope and deal with the traumatic events that they experience or hear about.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.344 · 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