Protocol for a study on vicarious resilience in service providers for victims and survivors of violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few national studies examine victim service providers (VSPs), the important work that they do, and the resources and strategies contributing to their wellness at work. The proposed study aims to investigate the vicarious resilience of those working within the Canadian victim services sector. Participants will be asked about the ways in which they have changed and experienced resilience through exposure to supporting their clients, in addition to the challenges and barriers that still exist. A mixed-methods study incorporating an online survey, virtual focus groups, and semi-structured in-depth interviews will explore job satisfaction, compassion fatigue, turnover intention, instances of workplace microaggressions, vicarious resilience, coping strategies and self-care of VSP participants. The results will contribute to the literature on themes related to the wellness of VSPs. Dissemination of results will provide a Canadian perspective on organizational wellness, including challenges encountered as a result of COVID-19, working conditions that require further advocacy, and emerging perspectives on protective factors.
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 | 0.044 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.227 | 0.051 |
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".