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 OpenAlexaffabout
Joanne Benham Rennick

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207