MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417330061 · doi:10.3928/0279-3695-20020801-15

Talking as a Primary Method of Peer Defusing for Military Personnel Exposed to Combat Trauma

2002· review· en· W2417330061 on OpenAlexaff
Joël S Fillion, Paul T. Clements, Jennifer B. Averill, Gloria J Vigil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary personnelDistressingAsset (computer security)Mental healthPsychologyPosttraumatic stressCombat stress reactionMedical emergencyPsychiatryMedicineComputer securityPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Humanitarian relief missions and military operations are unquestionably stressful and clearly have potential to affect the mental health of soldiers. 2. After being exposed to traumatic events, soldiers may develop acute stress reactions, a historically known phenomenon better recognized and understood today. 3. Although organized resources exist, they may not be accessible or appropriate. Soldiers are the most precious asset the military forces have and their peers may be the best and only resource available to them. 4. The need to ventilate and the relief that follows after talking about distressing events are evidence that defusing by talking should be encouraged after exposure to a traumatic event.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health ServicesSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207