MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096779503

Shared Sacrifice? An Inquiry into the Willingness to Perform Compulsory Military Service

2009· article· en· W2096779503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esteban G. Dalehite, Liucija Birškytė

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary serviceReligiosityService (business)Service memberMilitary personnelPolitical scienceTerrorismMilitary medical ethicsSacrificeMilitary threatLawPublic relationsPublic administrationMilitary scienceGeographyEconomicsEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recurring debate over mandatory military service has been revived as the U.S. all-voluntary military force is stretched to its limits in the war on terrorism. With the purpose of shedding light on preferences for compulsory military service, this article presents an inquiry into the characteristics of individuals that are more willing to perform compulsory military service. Using a national data set on high school students, one of the main insights derived from this study is that the characteristics of high school students willing to perform compulsory military service agree substantially with known characteristics of military recruits. In other words, high school students favour compulsory service in the military if they already have a predisposition to enter the military voluntarily. The research shows that the person who may be more willing to perform compulsory military service has the following characteristics: Parent in the military, low socio-economic status, conservative, male, and from the Mountain, Pacific, and Southern regions of the United States. Regional variations in willingness to perform compulsory service appear, in part, to capture regional variations in religiosity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207