MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049372328 · doi:10.1080/13533310108413879

Swedish peacekeepers in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A quantitative analysis

2001· article· en· W2049372328 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Johansson, Gerry Larsson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Peacekeeping · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingInfantryDemobilizationMilitary serviceMilitary personnelService (business)PsychologyBosnia herzegovinaSocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPoliticsBusinessMarketingEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the prototypical peacekeeping soldier and his experiences, based on a sample of all male soldiers serving in mechanized infantry companies in the first four Swedish UN battalions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (N = 1,238). A questionnaire was administered as a part of the demobilization programme. The prototypical peacekeeper is male, 20–25 years old, single, serves in a mechanized infantry company, and is on his first UN mission. Four different types of motives for joining the service were identified. The degree of perceived family support co‐varied strongly with service experiences. Favourable evaluations of the service period were associated with good relations with commanders and peers, perceiving few tasks as boring, but also with a high exposure to stressful events. The positive association with stress exposure may be related to the fact that no Swedish peacekeepers were killed during this period, which in turn probably contributed to experiences of invulnerability among the exposed soldiers while also increasing their social status among peers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational PeacekeepingSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207