Validation of the Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory in French-Canadian Veterans: Findings on the Relation between Deployment Experiences and Postdeployment Health
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
OBJECTIVES: This study had a twofold purpose: to validate the French-Canadian version of a measure of deployment risk and resilience factors and to examine the relation between deployment risk and resilience factors and postdeployment functioning. METHOD: Canadian veterans at an outpatient clinic (n = 131) completed a mail-in survey that included a measure on deployment risk and resilience factors, the Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory (DRRI) (1), as well as measures on psychological and physical health. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients for the DRRI scales were very good. As expected, DRRI risk factors were negatively associated with psychological and physical functioning, and DRRI resilience factors were positively associated with psychological and physical functioning. Low- as well as high-magnitude deployment risk factors were associated with functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The French-Canadian version of the DRRI is a reliable and valid measure of deployment risk and resilience factors. Deployment risk and resilience factors are associated with a host of problems in physical and psychological functioning for veterans.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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