MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189289641 · doi:10.1177/26326663211021727

Trauma in the correctional field and the correctional worker habitus

2021· article· en· W3189289641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura McKendy, Rosemary Ricciardelli, Kate Konyk

Bibliographic record

VenueIncarceration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitusPsychologyHarmBurnoutHypervigilanceSocial psychologyDistrustAmbivalenceStressorWorkplace violenceAnxietySociologyPoison controlSuicide preventionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistPsychiatryCultural capital

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prisons and other correctional settings are spaces often marked by numerous sources of physical, psychological, and emotional insecurity. Researchers have consistently found correctional work to be associated with outcomes such as burnout, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression. Drawing on open-ended survey questions with correctional workers (CWs) in the province of Ontario, we first identify salient themes in discussions of work stressors and potentially psychologically traumatic events (PPTEs); these include situations involving harm to prisoners, harm to staff, and harms associated with occupational and organizational culture. Next, employing the concept of “habitus,” we consider the social-subjective effects of exposure to PPTEs as revealed in respondent accounts. Key aspects include a disposition of hypervigilance, desensitization, disillusionment, and distrust. We suggest that the CW habitus may, in some ways, serve to mitigate threats in the work environment, though may have negative effects on job performance and well-being, and come to shape social experiences in everyday life.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIncarcerationSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207