MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387143885 · doi:10.47634/cjcp.v56i3.71678

Exploring the Lived Experiences of 911 Dispatchers: A Phenomenological Study

2023· article· en· W4387143885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D.W. Stanley, LaShondra Manning

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrideLived experienceInterpretative phenomenological analysisInterpersonal communicationStressorPopulationClinical psychologyQualitative researchSocial psychologyPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

911 dispatchers are considered the first of the first responders. Despite existing literature concluding 911 dispatchers experience rates of traumatic exposure similarly to other emergency service personnel, there is limited research regarding this population’s specific experiences. The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of 911 dispatchers to determine the consistency of their experiences with the limited existing literature regarding trauma-related disorders among dispatchers. In this international study, a transcendental phenomenological research approach was utilized to describe the lived experiences and commonalities of the participants. Participants were primarily recruited through social media groups specifically for 911 dispatchers. Based on the findings from this study, six prominent themes emerged: (a) health issues, (b) juxtaposed positive and negative work environment, (c) passion and pride about work, (d) cumulative stress, (e) vicarious traumatization, and (f) strained interpersonal relationships. Limitations, recommendations for future research, and implications are discussed. Keywords: 911 dispatchers, traumatic calls, posttraumatic symptoms, lived experiences

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207