Correctional officer recruits’ navigation of overwhelm: Internal and external strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, little is known of how correctional officer recruits (CORs), those beginning their careers as federal COs, navigate states of overwhelm (i.e., moments of acute stress) and whether their responses to overwhelm could be adaptive to the carceral environment. In this study, we analyze qualitative interviews with 27 Canadian CORs (18 male, 8 female) on navigating overwhelm to understand their preemployment strategies for responding to acute stress. Our grounded theory analysis reveals that CORs engage in both externally focused (i.e., stressor resolution) and internally focused (i.e., emotion regulation) coping strategies to navigate overwhelm. Additionally, CORs seek out relational support and identify how overwhelm can be an opportunity to grow and learn new strategies. We discuss how CORs’ reports of employing both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies can shape how the organization supports CORs and COs in maintaining and developing new coping skills for overwhelm, specifically by creating conditions for regulatory flexibility and fostering strong relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".