Role of Hardiness in the Psychological Well-being of Canadian Forces Officer Candidates
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 hardiness is associated with greater psychological well-being and lower levels of stress. This study examined the role of hardiness in the psychological well-being of military officer candidates undergoing basic training. Although most researchers have conceptualized hardiness as a global psychological construct, it is possible that military-specific hardiness, which pertains specifically to work experiences in the military environment, may be a more relevant measure. The role of both general and military-specific hardiness in life satisfaction, health symptoms, training satisfaction, and training stress was examined. The results of this study were consistent with those of previous research, suggesting that military-specific hardiness is an important predictor of psychological well-being of military personnel. Furthermore, military-specific hardiness served as a better predictor of the psychological well-being of military personnel than general hardiness. The implications of the findings and future research suggestions are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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