“I feel like it should be but I know it’s really not”: exploring physical fitness priorities at the correctional training program in Canadian federal corrections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The correctional training program (CTP), composed of three stages, includes a 14 week in-person component that Correctional Officer Recruits (CORs) must complete prior to their employment as a federal Correctional Officer (CO) for Correctional Service Canada (CSC). The CTP prepares recruits for a plethora of CO responsibilities, some dependent on physical fitness, such as responding to codes being called, physical altercations, or violent situations. Unlike other public safety positions (e.g. policing, border services, or coast guard) CSC does not require occupational fitness testing. In the current article, we use data from a multiyear longitudinal study of federal COs from across Canada to unpack how CORs manage physical fitness expectations at CTP; CSCs' expectations of COR physical fitness; and outline what types of physical fitness (e.g. weightlifting, cardiovascular, self-defence) are taught, thus valued most, during CTP. We situate the voices of CORs regarding physical fitness within the broader "body" literature and discuss policy recommendations tied to physical fitness, specifically COs' interest in reinstating pre-employment physical fitness screening.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".