Compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction : a study of Yukon child protection social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Front-line Child Protection Social Workers are exposed to child physical abuse, child sexual abuse, child neglect, and high risk crisis situations on a daily and on-going basis.Additionally, they must manage with excessive caseloads, high staff turnover, and lack of supports.These stresses and exposure to traumatic situations often changes Social Workers' view of themselves, view of the world and view of the work they do.Burnout, vicarious trauma, secondary traumatization, insidious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue are all labels that have been created as a means to define this transformation (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2001).This research was an exploratory study examining the factors that cause risks of compassion fatigue and create potential for compassion satisfaction in Yukon Child Protection Social Workers.The aim of this study was to determine how ongoing exposure to traumatic incidents and information was impacting Yukon Child Protection Social Workers.To conduct this research Hudnall-Stamm's "Professional Quality of Life Scale" (2009) questionnaire, followed by semi-structured interviews were conducted on four Yukon Child Protection Social Workers.The research noted that all participants had experienced personal and professional changes as a result of their work.The Professional Quality of Life Scale (PROQOL) determined that participants were at average risk for burnout and secondary traumatic stress; however, it quickly became evident in the semi-structured interviews that exposure to traumatic events was not the only factor that contributed to this risk.The participants also demonstrated an average potential for compassion satisfaction, with personal motivation to help families and their actual relationships with clients influencing this potential.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".