MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967334178 · doi:10.35502/jcswb.99

Benefits of delivering Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) training to police: An individual perspective

2019· article· en· W2967334178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jo Ramessur-Williams, Annemarie Newbury, Michelle McManus, Sally A. Rivers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Safety and Well-Being · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Intervention (counseling)HarmStatutory lawPublic relationsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Transformational leadershipBest practiceBusinessNursingMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across the United Kingdom, vulnerability is the biggest area of demand for police. However, evidence demonstrates that some forces may not be equipped to respond to the volume and nature of this demand. Beyond their statutory duties, operational police are often unaware of how to best respond to vulnerability within their roles. For many police officers and staff, there is limited training available to develop the skills needed to provide frontline support to vulnerable individuals and to signpost and refer to agencies who can provide the appropriate needs-based services. The Early Action Together (E.A.T.) program is delivering transformational change across Wales to support police and partners who wish to adopt a whole-systems response to vulnerability that enables early intervention and prevention. Drawing on the evidence around Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and the impact these early experiences can have on life outcomes, training is delivered to police and partners to embed ACE- and trauma-informed approaches into everyday practice. Evaluation of the training is already evidencing some key benefits of using this approach, with officers identifying and applying rootcause understanding of crime and harm and developing public understanding of existing early intervention assets and pathways of support in their local area. However, careful consideration and planning are required to ensure that these approaches continue to be embedded beyond the life 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Safety and Well-Being→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→