Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BOOK REVIEW Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth and David S. Riggs (Eds.). Military Deployment and its Consequences for Families. New York: Springer Publications (2014). 336 pages, ISBN: 978-1-4614-8711-1.Military Deployment and its Consequences for Families brings together the contributions of scholars, clinicians, and policymakers who attended the 2011 International Research Symposium on Military Families. It is intended for researchers and practitioners working the field of mental health and is divided into four sections: marital and functioning; parenting and child outcomes; single service members, and sequelae of wounds and injuries. Within each, there is a mixture of research that expands on existing findings - such as Knobloch and Theiss's study (Chapter 3) of post-deployment reintegration or Fraciskovic, Stevanovic and Klaric's analysis (Chapter 15) of families and PSTD - as well as research that ventures into new territory, such as Oswald and Sternberg's work (Chapter 8) on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) families in the American military.The LGB chapter, the separate section on single members, and the emphasis on parents' as well as spouses' roles (e.g., in Griffin et al.,'s study of caregiving in Chapter 14) helps to counter the bias present in much of research toward viewing as including only those relationships in which the member is a spouse and parent - what Dorothy Smith (1993) has labelled the Standard North American Family (SNAF) made up of a male primary breadwinner, a female mainly responsible for work within the home, and dependent children. Military policies regarding who is eligible to receive benefits and supports as a member of a military family and lifestyles that isolate immediate families from broader social supports (Daigle, 2013) tend to reproduce SNAF, such that researchers have to work hard to move beyond this bias and examine those lives that are less visible.The studies cover a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, including diary methods, interviews, survey research, document analysis, and the use of administrative data to examine health outcomes on children with deployed parents (Larson et al., Chapter 6), an innovative technique rarely seen outside of population health surveillance. This provides for a well-rounded body of knowledge that recognizes that different methods can afford different views of the subject. However, the relatively narrow focus on psychological perspectives may be disappointing for those who are seeking a broader range of contributions.Although it generally presents a solid collection of recent scholarship on an emerging area of interest to studies, the book suffers from a few limitations that are common to collections of conference proceedings. Editors of such an anthology face the dilemma of whether to stay true to the conference and report exactly what was presented, or to move beyond this, recognizing that a book is a different medium that can be used to accomplish different things. In this case, the book would have benefited from some judicious editing on a few points. First, while comprehensive literature reviews are essential for standalone articles, in a book these reviews can get repetitive and some trimming in articles on similar subjects would have allowed for more in-depth explorations of the studies' original contributions. Secondly, two chapters (Hoobler's work in Chapter 12 on women and work and Degeneffe and Tucker's survey of brain injury services in Chapter 16) dealt mostly with research on the civilian sphere and the ties to the population needed more attention. …
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,006 |
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 ».