MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110407363 · doi:10.1108/pijpsm-07-2020-0126

“It's all window dressing:” Canadian police officers' perceptions of mental health stigma in their workplace

2020· article· en· W3110407363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley J. Bikos

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicing An International Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental illnessStigma (botany)OriginalityMental healthPsychologyPerceptionOrganizational cultureSocial psychologyMasculinityPsychiatryPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study will provide a preliminary, general overview of Canadian police officers' perception of stigma toward mental illness in their workplace culture and its impacts. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a mixed methods approach with two nationwide datasets: a self-report survey ( N = 727) and 116 semi-structured interviews with police officers from 31 police services. Results are grounded in theories of stigma, masculinities and organizational culture. Findings Results indicate that most officers believe stigma toward mental illness in their workplace remains, despite senior management messaging and program implementation. Reporting mental illness was often seen as high risk, both personally and professionally. Policewomen, constables and those on leave reported statistically significant higher levels of perceived stigma and risk. Features of traditional masculinity were commonly reported, influencing the way individuals viewed themselves (self-stigma) and organizational response (structural stigma). Those with lived experience reported the highest levels of self and structural stigmatization, which often negatively impacted their recovery. Originality/value This study strengthens our understanding of how organizational culture and structure combine to contribute to the persistent presence of stigma in some Canadian police services (with implications for male-dominated occupations generally). Gender, rank, years of service and lived experience are additional areas of limited scholarship addressed by this study. The findings have important implications for effective program and policy evaluation and development.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicing An International JournalSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207