Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on jurors and juror symptomatology has been conducted for many years; however, existing research has primarily been completed in the United States. What little research was conducted in Canada is now several years ago. Further, there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest PTSD can and does occur as a result of serving jury duty. As such, this research sought to explore the relationship between jury duty participation and PTSD symptomology, as described by participants. This research is qualitative and involved two stages. First, participants (n=14) were asked to complete an online demographic survey that included a self-report measure for PTSD, the PCL-5. Second, participants (n=12) were invited to complete a one-two hour interview. Findings from the interviews were analyzed via thematic analysis. This research found three participants who met the criteria for probable PTSD (when using a cut-off score of 32). Overall, jurors in Canada echo previous research that states sources of symptoms relate to viewing disturbing images, deliberations, sequestering, and fear of making a mistake. New insight indicates fear associated with retaliation may be a major contributing factor for symptomology. Further, jurors whose life experiences relate to the trial type may be a contributing factor for symptomology. Policy and practice recommendations include improving information for jurors before they begin their service and providing more consistent follow-up support for jurors. Research should continue to explore the relationship between jurors and symptomology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".