MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404184613 · doi:10.4324/9781003424253-20

Exploring the effects of PSP careers on families

2024· book-chapter· en· W4404184613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linna Tam‐Seto, Heidi Cramm, Rosemary Ricciardelli, R. Nicholas Carleton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public safety personnel (PSP), as a nature of their jobs, are exposed to occupational stressors, including operational factors (i.e., potentially psychologically traumatic events) and organizational factors (i.e., shift work). There is increasing knowledge of how these occupational stressors affect the health and well-being of the PSP; however, there is less known about how these can affect family relationships as well as the health and well-being of family members. The current chapter explores family-related challenges from the perspectives of PSPs from a range of professions within a Canadian context. Responses to an open-ended question from a national survey of PSP were analyzed, resulting in two main themes: (1) the effects of organizational occupational stressors on PSP families and (2) the effects of operational occupational stressors on PSP families. The themes highlight the impact of occupational stressors on PSP family relationships as well as their families as a whole. The available results further support systems theories that acknowledge the bidirectionality within families, creating a mechanism enabling work–family conflict and spillover to manifest. The current chapter provides an important next step to inform future work to better understand the experiences and the consequences of PSP careers on the health and well-being of PSP and their families in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207