MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010275189 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00310

The Role of Moral Injury in PTSD Among Law Enforcement Officers: A Brief Report

2020· article· en· W3010275189 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos Papazoglou, Daniel M. Blumberg, Victoria Briones Chiongbian, Brooke McQuerrey Tuttle, Katy Kamkar, Brian A. Chopko, Beth Milliard, Prashant Aukhojee, Mari Koskelainen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral injuryLaw enforcementPsychologyCompassion fatigueCompassionPosttraumatic stressClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyLawPolitical scienceBurnout

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to critical incidents and hence potentially traumatic events is endemic in law enforcement. The study of law enforcement officers’ experience of moral injury and their exposure to potentially morally injurious incidents, and research on moral injury’s relationship with different forms of traumatization (e.g., compassion fatigue, posttraumatic stress disorder) are in their infancy. The present study aims to build on prior research and explores the role of moral injury in predicting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its clusters thereof. To this end, a sample of law enforcement officers (N = 370) from the National Police of Finland was recruited to participate in the current study. Results showed that moral injury significantly predicted PTSD as well as its diagnostic clusters (i.e., avoidance, hyperarousal, re-experiencing). The aforementioned role of moral injury to significantly predict PTSD and its clusters were unequivocal even when compassion fatigue was incorporated into the path model. Clinical, research, and law enforcement practice implications 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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207