Lifestyle Dimensions of Public Safety Personnel Families: There’s No Life Like It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The nature and cumulative occupational demands imposed on families of public safety personnel (PSP) are substantial, in many cases non-negotiable, and distinct from the general population accentuating risk factors for family well-being. Despite this reality, the contributions of PSP families are not well understood, and a conceptual framework is needed. The aim of this paper is to summarize contextual factors (lifestyle dimensions) that shape the lives of PSP families; factors supported in the existing, albeit limited, body of research. METHODS: Grounded in the interpretive/constructivist paradigm, a synthesis was central to understanding the lived experiences of PSP families. An interdisciplinary research team engaged in an iterative process of framework analysis to capture the variability and complexity of PSP family life and distilled the overarching lifestyle dimensions. RESULTS: Three lifestyle dimensions-logistics, risks, and identities-emerged from contextual factors and represent distinct aspects of PSP family life. PSP families play a crucial role in that their capacity to accommodate the lifestyle dimensions (i.e., logistics, risks, and identities), without which the PSP could not meet the demands of the profession. CONCLUSION: Promoting awareness of these dimensions and their consequent demands underscores the cumulative demands that put PSP families at risk. Responses from governments, public safety organizations, and communities are required to help PSP families manage non-negotiable elements of the public safety occupation that spill over into family life over which they have no control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".