MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W272240933

Organization and execution of current practices of deployment-related mental health support

2011· article· en· W272240933 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTNO Repository · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentDeliverableInterviewProject teamBusinessMental healthPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Public relationsProcess managementOperations managementEngineeringPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicineNursingSystems engineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental Health support (MHS) is an integral part of the whole chain of events within military organizations. Several countries are delivering this support for troops that are active in the current operation in Afghanistan (ISAF). Between 2009-2010 TNO Defense, Safety and Security, part of the Netherlands Organization of Applied Scientific Research (TNO), executed a project named 'Assessment of Organization and Execution of Current Practices of Deployment-related MH Support (DRMHS)'. The main goal of this project was to assess protocols and current practices of MHS during and after operational deployment (i.e., prevention, intervention, and treatment). Because nowadays service members are often deployed several times, MHS after deployment can be considered pre-deployment MHS. Therefore, MHS before deployment was also assessed in this project. The countries Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), Great Britain (GBR), the Netherlands (NLD) and the United States of America (USA) participated in this project. Information was gathered and evaluated by document-analysis and by interviewing key-players in the field of Military MHS of each nation. Both were undertaken by means of a semi-structured interview protocol, especially developed for this project. The deliverables of this project are a TNO report and scientific paper describing the current practises of DRMHS of the individual countries as well as a comparison of DRMHS between countries. The current paper focuses on the comparison between countries. The comparison is non-competitive, and aims to identify opportunities for innovative interventions and assessments. The results of the whole project can be used to develop new policies and practices that strengthen the Military MH care the participating organizations currently provide in order to sustain a good work environment, operational effectiveness and MH well-being of their service members. Furthermore, the results can be used to develop an even more efficient collaboration between countries in their mutual MH care efforts, whereby they will be better able to face the challenges of current military missions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.228 · 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