MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2653476955 · doi:10.1080/10439463.2017.1342644

It’s not all about guns and gangs: role overload as a source of stress for male and female police officers

2017· article· en· W2653476955 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Duxbury, Michael Halinski

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing & Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandatePsychologyWork (physics)Information overloadStressorSocial psychologyClinical psychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research uses male (n = 1169) and female (n = 300) samples of police officers and multivariate techniques to test a model which hypothesises: (1) work-role overload and family-role overload will predict stress, (2) objective (i.e. hours employed) and subjective (i.e. non-supportive culture, pressures to perform work outside their mandate, competing demands) work demands will predict work-role overload, (3) objective (i.e. dependent care hours) family demands will predict family-role overload and (4) gender differences across all paths. Results showed the relationship between work-role overload and stress was stronger for male police officers, whereas the relationship between family-role overload and stress was stronger for female police officers. Hours employed, performing work outside one’s mandate, and perceptions of the work culture as non-supportive were stronger predictors of work-role overload for the female officers in our sample than for their male counterparts. The path between hours in dependent care hours and family-role overload was also stronger for female than male police officers. Competing work demands, on the other hand, was a stronger predictor of work- role overload for male than female police officers.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations45
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicing & SocietySame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207