Recruiting and retaining of Indigenous Probations Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to define different types of culturally commensurate experiences, events, activities and interventions which Indigenous people find relevant for improving cultural diversity. Design/methodology/approach Based on interviews and surveys with Indigenous Probations Officers, the authors define a framework of nine experiences and events relevant to the organization, team and cultural development. Findings The key finding lies in proposing a framework of what Indigenous Probation Officers finding lies view as commensurate experiences, activities or interventions which recognize their cultural context (American Psychological Association, 2003). Research limitations/implications The key limitations to this study are the size of the sample and the inability to conclusively argue that the framework of experiences developed can claim to represent those important for improving recruitment and retentions of all Indigenous Probation Officers. Further exploratory research of this type is necessary to add to this research in guiding future research and practice. Practical implications The definition of a multicultural experiences offered here might be useful in encouraging Probation Officers and others in developing a deeper appreciation of cultures of Indigenous peoples and other groups. Social implications The purpose is to better understand an Indigenous perspective on enhancing a connection to culture within the Corrections system. Originality/value Rather than using a list of competencies to shape behaviors and experiences that people practice, the underlying assumption is to encourage cultural multiculturalism framework competency development by focusing on experiences and events important to objectives related to improving diversity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".