Axe and a Handshake – A Scoping Review of the Transition from Public Safety Occupations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exiting a public safety occupation (e.g., paramedics, police, firefighters) and entering retirement is unique in many ways. There are heightened risks and demands associated with essential emergency services that involve personal sacrifices and commitment and the absence of this intense role is significant requiring an adjustment. Public safety personnel (PSP) leave their professions for various reasons including age-related retirement and forced retirement due to illness or injury and little is known about their experiences during the transition. The objective of this review is to summarize the existing body of research. The methodology for scoping reviews outlined in the five-stage framework by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was followed. Abstract screening of 5,801 papers yielded 128 studies for full-text screening. Forty-five papers were accepted by at least two of three reviewers for data extraction and analysis. High level themes emerged including cumulative impacts, separation from identity and culture, and buffers. The study found that there is a need for planning and support for those exiting public safety professions. Financial planning is the focus of pre-planning when it exists and applied research is needed to further understand psychosocial risk and protective factors to support the development of acceptable transition strategies and resources.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".