MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2725704222 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.212

PRESIDENTIAL SYMPOSIUM: LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MILITARY SERVICE ON AGING: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

2017· article· en· W2725704222 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn M. Aldwin, Richard A. Settersten

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary serviceVietnameseVietnam WarService memberGerontologyPresidential systemService (business)World War IISuccessful agingPolitical scienceMilitary personnelVeterans AffairsPsychologyMedicinePoliticsLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies of aging have been conducted on samples that include WWII and Korea-era veterans; thus, military service a “hidden variable” in aging research. The impact of service on later life development and aging is poorly understood, yet its effects are often broad and long-ranging, and can alter lives in positive as well as negative ways. This symposium considers the long-term effects of military service on health and well-being of veterans who served in the armed forces. Presenters are from several nations (Israel, Canada, Vietnam, Korea, and United States), and use a lifespan/life course perspective to examine the impact of service on later-life outcomes in veterans from various conflicts. Solomon and colleagues examine long-term effects of being a POW among Israeli veterans. Pedlar examines changes in Canadian veterans after service, and compares them to non-veterans. Korinek examines older Vietnamese war survivors, and the impact of wartime exposure on intergenerational relations. Kang and colleagues provide a lifespan examination of the long-term effects of combat exposure in Korean Vietnam War Veterans, while Lee and colleagues examine possible pathways for positive outcomes of combat exposure among US veterans from WWII and Korea. Dr. Settersten will be our discussant, focusing on common themes among studies, and the implications of military service for changing lives across countries.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→