MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004864759

Addressing Moral Suffering in Police Work: Theoretical Conceptualization and Counselling Implications

2020· article· en· W3004864759 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Konstantinos Papazoglou, Daniel M. Blumberg, Katy Kamkar, Alexandra McIntyre‐Smith, Mari Koskelainen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationMoral injuryPsychologyWitnessCriminologyJudgementPsychological interventionMoral disengagementSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moral distress is a condition affecting police officers who, because of insurmountable circumstances (e.g., not being able to protect a civilian from a violent criminal) or bad judgement (e.g., crossfire between officers), believe that they did not do enough or did not do the “right thing.” Moral injury occurs when police officers perpetrate, fail to prevent, or bear witness to deaths or severe acts of violence that transgress deeply held moral beliefs (e.g., fatally shooting an allegedly armed criminal who is later proved to be unarmed). Considering the multidimensional nature of police work, several authors have maintained that it is imperative to understand the complex nature of police moral suffering (i.e., moral distress and moral injury). This review highlights the importance of assessing and recognizing moral injuries and/or distress among police officers. The data indicates that counsellors should build relevant, empirically validated interventions into their counselling treatment plans. Moreover, researchers have suggested that counsellors employ practice-based and evidence-based techniques with officers who experience moral suffering. Ultimately, recommendations for future research are provided, considering that research in this area is in its infancy.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207