New Canadian Federal Correctional Officers Striving to Be Accepted: A Source of Occupational Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the current article, we explore how divisions in the Correctional Officer (CO) workspace, according to new officers, contribute to workplace culture(s). We analyzed semi‐structured interviews with COs ( n = 72), who had approximately 1 year of occupational tenure in Canadian federal penitentiaries, to nuance how COs interpret diversities in their relationships with colleagues and how, in turn, these relationships shape the workplace culture. Findings reveal social dynamics and peer groups create a stressful organizational culture for COs, particularly new COs or those who exhibit an unsatisfactory response to an incident. However, new COs feel their stress is tempered through social inclusion by other junior COs with less occupational tenure or by inclusion by the more senior officers. Navigating social relationships with colleagues remains a significant source of stress for COs, with several key contributing factors, such as feeling excluded by colleagues, the pervasive nature of gossip, as well as differences between training and realities of CO work, and attitudes toward occupational tenure. Implications of workplace culture are discussed, with practical considerations, including training, to create a more inclusive and less stressful CO workspace.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".