MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977022258 · doi:10.60770/b8hn-9j13

Understanding mental health, burnout, and substance abuse among legal professionals in Canada

2024· article· en· W6977022258 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMRU-Repo · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisSubstance abuseIntervention (counseling)Mental healthExploratory researchLegal professionSubstance useQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health, burnout, and substance abuse in the workplace have come into focus yet only certain occupations have been studied regarding these concepts. The legal profession in Canada lacks behind in combating mental health, burnout, and substance abuse issues and requires further attention to help create a healthier and happier profession. This research delved into these topics to get a better understanding of its prevalence, as well as to discover what is currently being done to address it, and what needs to be done to address it better in the future. There is little research about these topics and lawyers in the Canadian context. This project aimed to contribute to the literature. Using primary and secondary data collection methods, this research sought answers using thematic and exploratory analysis, and integrative literature review methods. The literature and survey data show that lawyers experience an increase in mental health, burnout, and substance abuse issues yet little is being done about it to aid in preventing or educating lawyers about prevention or intervention strategies. Participants in the study reported unique and meaningful answers about how to improve the current standards by the Law Society in their respective province in Canada, as well as the current stressors that they are experiencing which can be minimized. This research is integral to a healthier and happier future for legal professionals in Canada and it is important to acknowledge the importance of addressing these issues through prevention and education initiatives before they become detrimental to the lawyers, the profession, and their clients.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMRU-RepoSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207