Good Practices of End of Deployment Debriefing in the Royal Netherlands Navy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practices in early psychological interventions after critical incidents have been the focus of research for several years now. In an article in The Lancet in 2002, it was concluded on the basis of seven international studies that individual single session debriefing does not lead to a decline in the incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) among the victims of accidents or traumatic events. At the international level, it was recommended that the term "debriefing" should be replaced by the term "early intervention", and that a stop should be put to the debriefing of victims of shocking events. The debate about early interventions in the Netherlands Armed Forces continued in 2004 in the memorandum to the State Secretary for Defense from the former Inspector-General of the Armed Forces. The Ombudsman of the Canadian Armed Forces suggested in 2004 a policy on End of Deployment Debriefings in his memorandum on Third Location Decompression, in which redeploying troops stay together on the transit home in a safe place to share experiences and expectations. In 2004 the Royal Navy rolled out their Risk Management approach in operational units of the Royal Marines, in which they assess the risk for the development of adaptation problems after redeployments. It appeared that more than 90 percent of the American soldiers, who were wounded in Iraq and were recovering in the American Fleet Hospital Eight in Spain, rated their debriefing in this hospital helpful or very helpful. In this paper we present the data of research of satisfaction of military personnel with recent group-wise End of Deployment Debriefing in the Royal Netherlands Navy and the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.
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 | 0.025 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".