The ultimate sacrifice: Perceived peer honor predicts troops’ willingness to risk their lives
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
Honor is a central concept in the profession of arms. The present study of 2,254 Canadian Forces (CF) members examined how they viewed the honor of their peers at ranks below, at, or above their own. Although rank is itself a form of vertical honor, participants’ mean assessments of honor were inversely related to these relative-rank distinctions. As well, averaged across vertical honor, the assessed honor of other CF members directly predicted their willingness to risk their lives in combat operations. This effect was fully mediated by participants’ affective commitment to the CF and it was partially mediated by their sense of duty. The findings show that how professionals perceive the honor of their peers does not simply follow vertical indices of honor, and that those perceptions predict attitudinal states (e.g., affective commitment) and behavioral intentions (willingness to risk one’s life to perform one’s duties).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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