Psychological Well-Being of Canadian Forces Officer Candidates: The Unique Roles of Hardiness and Personality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has found that individual characteristics play an important role in psychological wellbeing and perception of stress. Although the Five Factor Model of personality has been found to consistently predict psychological well-being in the general population and among military personnel, hardiness has also been found to be a predictor of well-being. This study examined the unique role of hardiness, above that of personality, in the well-being and stress perceptions of Canadian Forces officer candidates undergoing basic training. The results of the study were consistent with those of previous research, suggesting that military hardiness is an important predictor of well-being and stress perceptions. Furthermore, hardiness was related to all domains of psychological well-being and training perceptions when the Five Factor Model of personality was statistically controlled. These findings demonstrate that hardiness and personality constitute 2 different constructs, both of which have significant contributions to well-being.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it