The Continuum of Moral Harms: Correctional Officers’ Perspectives of Prison and the Influence on their Wellness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We apply the continuum of moral harms as described by Litz and King (J Trauma Stress 32:341–349, 2019), ranging from moral distress to moral injury, to understand the impacts of correctional officer (CO) interpretations of prison, recognizing how experiencing prison work informs their personal views. In the current study, we analyze data from 93 COs with a maximum of 2 years of work experience, to understand how, reflecting on their occupational experience, they perceive the purpose of place of their work—the federal penitentiary. Findings reveal prison as a space that they believe should be rehabilitative but which is often adamantly perceived as not rehabilitative. Accordingly, these contradictory circumstances reveal most officers encounter workplace experiences that may be consistent with current conceptualizations of moral frustration, distress, or injury. Thus, we demonstrate how prison work can produce moral challenges for COs. We recommend further study into the conceptualizations of moral harm in prison work more broadly and how to inform proactive strategies to address sources of these deleterious 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".