Fight or flight? Exploring suicide thoughts, experiences, and behaviours among correctional workers and their interventions of agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research indicates that, relative to the general public and most other types of public safety personnel, correctional workers are more likely to engage in suicide ideation, planning, and attempts. Yet, less is known about lived experiences towards, of, and beyond suicidality among correctional staff. To contribute to this gap in knowledge, the current study draws on qualitative, open-ended survey response data (n = 94) to explore how Canadian provincial correctional workers navigate experiences of suicide, with a focus on the individual, personal, and social factors tied to experiences towards and of suicide thoughts and behaviours. By engaging the seminal works of Foucault, Žižek, and Deleuze and Guattari, we explore respondents' distinct forms of agency when grappling with, challenging, and transcending thoughts around suicide. We then discuss the research implications, with an emphasis on providing correctional workers with confidential, non-stigmatised well-being and treatment-seeking resources and processes, and more health care funding to fully cover timely and sufficient mental health treatment, prevention, and intervention.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".