'The environment says it's okay': The tension between peer support and police culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the implementation and subsequent operation of a peer support program in a Canadian police service. Data was collected from an online survey, available to the police service for a period of one year, and 16 in-depth interviews with peer support team members. There is very little data on police peer support programs in the literature. Thus, the purpose of the survey was to gain an understanding of what issues members believe a peer support program should address, the circumstances under which they would seek help from the peer support program, and the reasons they may or may not use the program. The interviews were conducted with a view to eliciting respondent views on program training, implementation, logistics, and issues of policy and practice. According to the literature, police peer support programs should work, in theory, based on the belief that police officers relate to and trust other officers more than they do outsiders. However, this study found that cultural issues involving trust, confidentiality and stigma attached to mental health, stand as potential barriers to the success of the program.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".