COMPARING OCCUPATIONAL STRESSORS AND THE MENTAL HEALTH OF MALE AND FEMALE CANADIAN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims:Occupational stressors occur to some degree in all work environments, and if they are severe enough they may affect the mental health of the employees. The current study was designed to: (1) examine two elements of occupational stress (operational and organizational) in male and female Canadian correctional workers; and (2) examine whether operational and occupational stressors are associated with symptoms of poor mental health.Methods:Data were collected by the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment using a web-based survey procedure, and included 1,308 correctional officers. The survey tools included established self-report measures for occupational stressors (20 organizational and 20 operational), and various aspects of mental health. Analyses included descriptive and non-parametric bivariate statistics.Results:Females reported slightly lower mean organizational and significantly lower operational stress than males (2.8 vs 2.9, and 1.9 vs 2.1, respectively). The three highest mean organizational stressors were the same for both male and female workers - inconsistent leadership style, bureaucratic red tape, and feeling that different rules apply to different people. Operational and organizational stress was significantly correlated with increased symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression, stress, anger, and lower resiliency in both males and females.Conclusions:Male and female Canadian correctional officers reported the same top four operational and three organizational stressors. Both operational and occupational stressors are significantly associated with increased mental health symptoms. It is important for management and government officials to identify sources of stress in order to potentially improve the mental health of correctional officers 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".