MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110263114 · doi:10.1080/15614263.2020.1848564

Post-traumatic effects in policing: exploring disclosure, coping and social support

2020· article· en· W3110263114 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolice Practice and Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)OfficerPsychologySocial supportFeelingDistressPsychological distressSocial psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the relationships between traumatic events experienced at work and police officer distress disclosure, enacted coping, including social support seeking, and impairment. A total of 266 web surveys were completed by sworn officers from a large municipal police force in Canada with 76 reporting having experienced at least one traumatic event at work in the year prior to the survey. The most significant finding was the relationship between officers feeling comfortable disclosing distressing personal information and seeking social support from others, although social support did not relate to their impairment. Reported attempts to cope on their own (self-coping) and to avoid the issue (avoidant coping) were positively related to impairment suggesting that these forms of coping are less effective for police officer work-related trauma. Implications for future research and practice for coping and social support in police occupations 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.193 · 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