Is Military Employment Fair? Application of Social Comparison Theory in a Cross-National Military Sample
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
Although military and civilian personnel work closely together in defense organizations, they are subject to different human resources practices and conditions of service. Assessments of military personnel along a range of job characteristics are examined to identify areas in which they assess themselves as “better or worse off” than their civilian counterparts, and how these comparisons relate to perceptions of fairness using data from Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. Military personnel reported meaningfulness/support aspects (e.g., meaningful work) as similar for military and civilian personnel, indicated that negative impacts (e.g., risk of injury) were greater for military, and perceived variability in instrumental benefits (e.g., pay, advancement). Upward social comparison (i.e., seeing oneself as worse off) was related to lower perceived fairness, whereas downward social comparison was related to higher perceived fairness. This research informs mechanisms for promoting perceptions of fairness and enhancing military–civilian personnel relations in defense establishments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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