Mindful of authority: A snapshot of the meditation and contemplative practices of some Canadian Commissioned Police Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into the benefits of mindfulness training, meditation, and other contemplative practices for the workplace has grown dramatically. Within the context of Canadian policing, the wellness benefits of these mental practices are beginning to be understood. However, little is known about Canadian police officers’ current use of these practices. This information is important for future research exploring the effects of these practices over time, and for police agencies considering introducing mindfulness or meditation training programs into their organizations. This article shares initial findings from a broader, yet unpublished, qualitative study of a cohort of Commissioned Officers from a large Canadian police service who self-identified as having regular meditation practices. Invitations to participate in a study exploring the perceived influence of meditation on leadership were e-mailed to all 605 Commissioned Officers. Of the 13 individuals who responded, 11 met the study criteria. Qualitative content analysis of the data yielded the following results: Commissioned Officers in a wide variety of roles in this police service are engaged in a broad spectrum of contemplative practices; each participant engaged in multiple practices; and the most common reason for beginning to practice meditation was to assist in recovery from a psychological or physical injury. These findings suggest that police organizations introduce a variety of mental training practices early in officers’ service to ensure their career is more positive, resilient, and rewarding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".