MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168670466 · doi:10.1177/0095327x11398749

The Impact of Shared Location on the Mental Health of Military and Civilian Adolescents in a Community Affected by Frequent Deployments: A Research Note

2011· article· en· W2168670466 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Deborah Harrison, Karen Robson, Patrizia Albanese, Chris Sanders, Christine Newburn‐Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyStressorSpillover effectSample (material)Longitudinal studyApplied psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary results of our survey of 1066 adolescent members of a Canadian Forces (CF) community, comparing the mental health and well-being of CF and civilian youth in a secondary school adjacent to an army base, yielded surprising results. The data were collected in 2008 with an instrument that replicated parts of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). Our findings suggested that there are few statistically significant differences between CF and civilian youth on mental health and well-being measures. On the other hand, both the CF and civilian youth scored lower on crucial health and well-being measures than their peers in the national NLSCY sample. This research note attempts to explain these complementary findings, using data from follow-up semi-structured interviews we conducted in 2009/10 with 60 of the CF adolescents. It also considers the possibility of a ‘‘spillover effect’’ of military life stressors on civilian youth.

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)0.003
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 score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207