Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Using a paper-and-pencil survey format, measures of professional attitudes were obtained from 2,470 members of the land component (i.e., army) of the Canadian Forces. Six dimensions of military professionalism were examined in the study--three derived from Huntington's (1957) model of military professionalism, two adapted from Canadian Forces doctrine on military professionalism, and one from Moskos' (1977) conceptualization of institutional-occupational role orientation. Results showed considerable overlap in professionalism dimensions as well as relations among the professionalism dimensions and outcome measures of satisfaction, commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Finally, professionalism differences were also observed across ranks in that higher-ranked individuals scored higher on professional attitudes than lower ranked respondents. The concept of professionalism has enjoyed increased interest in military circles in recent years. Last year, the Canadian Forces (CF) published what is perhaps the first ever doctrinal manual on military professionalism in Canada (Duty with Honour, 2003). The year before, Matthews (2002) of the United States Military Academy at West Point edited a volume of articles on army professionalism. At about the same time in a speech at the Royal Military College of Canada, the Chief of Land Staff (i.e., the head of the army in Canada), described Canada's Army of the future as being more professional, among other things. Military professionalism is also a topic of interest in Eastern European nations as they establish democratic control of their militaries in their move towards greater integration with the West (Sarvas, 1999). As a result of this widespread interest in military professionalism, we believe that developing a measure of professional military attitudes is a worthy line of research. This paper describes our attempts: (a) to develop a measure of military professionalism, and (b) to examine relations among professional attitudes and well-known employment attitudes like commitment, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour. Within the Canadian military community the bestknown authority on the concept of military professionalism is Huntington (1957). Writing about the American military of his day, Huntington's position was that the military officer is a profession like the medical or legal profession because it embodies the three professional criteria of expertise, responsibility and corporateness. Because Huntington's assessment focused on the organizational level and analyzing the character of the modern officer corps (p. 24), it is not clear if his three professional criteria extend to the individual level of analysis. Thus, the feasibility of using the Huntington framework to examine the professional attitudes of individual officers, noncommissioned members and soldiers is uncertain. Dimensions of Professionalism Huntington (1957) viewed expertise as specialized knowledge held by the professional practitioner and gained through extensive study of the profession. According to Huntington, more expertise implied higher levels of professionalism. At the individual level of analysis, we suggest that Huntington's expertise construct comprises two elements: (a) a certain level of expertise already gained, and (b) an active program on the part of the professional to continuously upgrade this specialized knowledge. In our application of Huntington, a professional who is not constantly staying abreast of developments in his or her profession is lacking in the area of expertise. Huntington (1957) conceptualized responsibility as social responsibility, reflecting the extent to which the professional organization provides a service that is essential to society. Also included in Huntington's definition of responsibility is the requirement for the profession to regulate its members by enforcing codes of ethics and the need for the individual professional to be intrinsically motivated by love of his and committed to the state by a sense of social obligation to utilize this craft for the benefit of society (p. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».