Traumatic stress in Canadian lawyers: A longitudinal study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: . This study sought to identify the prevalence of PTSD among lawyers and its associated work and non-work-related risk and moderating factors. METHOD: = 169) completed two online surveys 8 months apart. RESULTS: Seven percent of lawyers working with trauma-related cases met the criteria for probable PTSD at study entry only, 7.0% met them at study endpoint only, and an additional 3.5% of the sample met the criteria at both time points, yielding a current (past-month) prevalence of 10.4% and an 8-month cumulative prevalence of 17.5%. Beyond a past diagnosis of PTSD, the most important risk factor was the number of years on the job. Parenthood represented a mitigating factor. Ultimately, the more time spent working on trauma-related cases, the more severe were the PTSD symptoms, although this relationship was moderated by perceived quality of life and work-family balance. CONCLUSIONS: Lawyers exposed to trauma-related cases represent an at-risk group for PTSD. The findings highlight the powerful impacts that interpersonal relationships and self-care may have in buffering this health hazard. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".