MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392797528 · doi:10.35502/jcswb.374

Barriers and bridges: Exploring the introduction of meditation and mindfulness training into Canadian policing

2024· article· en· W4392797528 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Les Sylven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Safety and Well-Being · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindfulnessMeditationThematic analysisPsychologyFocus groupPublic relationsQualitative researchApplied psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian police organizations are under significant pressure to enhance the health and wellness of their employees. Growing research suggests that training in meditation and mindfulness can contribute to the well-being of police personnel and may even be a catalyst for police reform. Limited research, however, has been conducted that seeks to understand how these practices should be introduced into Canadian police organizations. This article contributes to this understanding by sharing results from an exploratory study that asked 11 Commissioned Officers, who regularly practice meditation, to identify the key factors that should be considered when introducing mindfulness practice into their large Canadian police service. Using semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and guided by a reflexive thematic analysis approach, six themes were developed. These can be viewed as both barriers (invincibility and stigma; overworked and overstressed; and checkbox cynicism) and bridges (credible champions; the whole person perspective; and the philosophy of servant leadership) to the successful introduction of meditation and mindfulness practices into Canadian police organizations. This study advances the literature on introducing mindfulness to policing as it is one of the first to focus on the perceptions of mindfulness practicing Commissioned Police Officers. It also offers practical suggestions for police leaders, and leaders from other public safety professions, to consider when contemplating the introduction of these mental practices into their organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Safety and Well-BeingSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207