Observations on the Association between Operational Readiness and Personal Readiness in the Canadian Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was written to assist the Stress and Coping Group within Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Toronto develop, as part of its long-term project to explore the notion of psychological resiliency, a methodology to examine operational readiness at the individual level (i.e., personal readiness) in the Canadian Forces (CF). The report will focus on: 1) existing policies governing individual readiness for deployed operations, and 2) actual and perceived individual psychological readiness for deployed operations. While the CF has had considerable success in devising and maintaining systems to assure unit readiness, the CF has invested very little in examining the question of individual or personal readiness. For the purpose of this study, personal operational readiness (individual readiness) is defined as the physical, operational and psychological preparedness of an individual to deploy. Individual readiness has become an even more pressing issue for the CF in the past decade with the higher operational tempo that the CF is experiencing. This high operational tempo combined with reductions in both personnel and financial resources has led to a situation where the CF is unable to sustain its ability to carry out its roles and missions in the long term. The report observed that there are a number of systemic problems that appear to have negative impacts on the ability of the CF to ensure high levels of individual readiness. The report recommended that research be considered to further investigate the observations made in this report.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".