MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888505279 · doi:10.1177/2158244018794794

Fighting Police Trauma: Practical Approaches to Addressing Psychological Needs of Officers

2018· article· en· W2888505279 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

VenueSAGE Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkepticismDutyPsychologyContext (archaeology)Psychological traumaApplied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress and trauma experienced by police officers in the line of duty can have negative impacts on officers’ health and well-being. Psychological support is imperative to help officers maintain psychological well-being and to perform their duties efficiently. However, officers are often skeptical to seek psychological support. The reasons behind such skepticism vary. Specifically, officers may believe that clinicians do not understand police work. In addition, inquiries by clinicians into personal and early life experiences may be interpreted as attempts to patronize officers; as a result, police officers’ identities as those who serve and protect may be disparaged in the context of therapy. This article recommends a number of evidence and practice-based actions that clinicians may employ to approach police culture and develop effective clinical support for officers who suffer from the debilitating effects of police-related stress and trauma. Recommendations for empirical research and clinical practice are discussed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.601
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.084 · 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