MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145903803 · doi:10.1037/0002-9432.72.4.505

Exposure to human tragedy, empathy, and trauma in ambulance paramedics.

2002· article· en· W2145903803 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl Regehr, Gerald Goldberg, Judy Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social InnovationYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyDistressPsychologyCognitionCoping (psychology)Interpersonal communicationPersonal distressClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paramedics are exposed to events involving human pain and suffering on a daily basis, many of which are the result of violence perpetrated by 1 individual on another. For the most part, these emergency workers have learned to deal with such events and take them in stride. At times, however, certain circumstances lead workers to develop an emotional connection with the victim or his or her family. When this occurs, paramedics report increased symptoms of traumatic stress. Aspects that can trigger this connection include the victim's alienation from others, profound loss, or the abuse of an innocent child. One of the coping strategies described in these circumstances is to manage the events on a cognitive and technical level while maintaining an emotional distance. Although such a strategy may be protective, it may also have long-term negative effects in terms of interpersonal relationships. This mixed-methods study attempts to better understand factors that lead to higher levels of distress among paramedics within the theoretical framework of emotional and cognitive empathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations364
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207