MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159710334 · doi:10.1177/0095327x12441326

Canadian Values and Military Operations in the Twenty-First Century

2012· article· en· W2159710334 on OpenAlex
Joanne Benham Rennick

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularizationAnomiePluralism (philosophy)Moral dilemmaEnvironmental ethicsReligious valuesPolitical scienceSociologyMilitary medical ethicsLawSocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyIslamPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas traditionally religion has played a central role in shaping the shared values in a society, secularization, privatization of religion, and pluralism are changing the values that personnel bring to the Canadian Forces. This late modern reality means that many people who have rejected traditional forms of religion in order to interpret their personal spiritual beliefs for themselves are uncertain about their core values. Differences in values among military personnel are further complicated by the realities of modern military engagements that require a greater need for ethical thinking and moral decision making. This article examines the nature of religion and values in late modern Canadian society and identifies religious leadership as a source of moral and ethical direction as well as consolation in the face of moral anomie. Finally, it highlights the need for greater education about the role of religion and values for military personnel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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