The Role of Military Culture in Military Organizations’ Responses to Woman Abuse in Military Families
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
This paper reports on a study of the Canadian Forces’ (CF's) response to woman abuse in military families which was conducted using institutional ethnography feminist methodology. A 20-person multidisciplinary team conducted 126 semi-structured interviews in four Canadian provinces with: (1) present and former civilian female partners of CF members, who were survivors of abuse [64]; (2) regional civilian and CF social service providers, and CF supervisory personnel [52]; and (3) National Defence Headquarters program administrators and generals in Ottawa [10]. Analyzing these interviews enabled us to identify and elaborate on some of the military social relations in which the experiences of military spouses who are woman abuse survivors are embedded. This paper discusses the difficulties created for military spouses by geographical transfers and military housing neighbourhoods, and establishes the crucial role played by the chain of command in military organizations’ responses to spouses who have been abused. The paper then shows how military leaders, especially those who supervise combat units, respond to woman abuse in ways that reflect their participation in the hypervigilance and unit cohesion features of military culture. The paper concludes by reflecting on Western militaries’ responses to woman abuse in military families in light of their responses to the events of September 11, 2001.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it