Exploring the role of resilience and perceived organizational support in the secondary trauma experience of Canadian post-secondary student affairs professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This quantitative study explored the secondary trauma experience of Canadian student affairs professionals. Using a composite scale comprised of the Secondary Trauma in Student Affairs Professionals scale (Lynch & Glass, 2019), the Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008), the Survey on Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001) and demographic items, a mean level of secondary trauma was established for several demographic identities and functional areas within the profession. Additionally, resilience and perceived organizational support were found to be negatively correlated with secondary trauma. A multiple linear regression found a weak predictive relationship between the variables of female identity, Indigenous identity, and working in an ancillary or enrollment services function, and secondary trauma. A stronger predictive relationship was found between resilience and secondary trauma, while perceived organizational support was not found to be predictive of secondary trauma. Keywords: Secondary Trauma, Canadian, Student Affairs, Post-Secondary, Resilience, Perceived Organizational Support
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".