MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915459364 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh.5.s1.2018-0026

Impact of military lifestyle on employment status and income among female civilian spouses of Canadian Armed Forces members

2019· article· en· W2915459364 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zhigang Wang, Lesleigh E. Pullman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
FundersOffice of the Secretary of DefenseUniwersytet Medyczny im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w PoznaniuU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMilitary personnelGerontologyQuality of life (healthcare)SpousePsychologyDemographic economicsMilitary serviceDemographyEnvironmental healthMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The military lifestyle has a significant impact on the quality of life of military families. In this article, we examine its impact on military spousal employment status and income. Methods: The data sets used in the analyses included 2,871 female civilian spouses of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Regular Force members who completed the Quality of Life (QOL) Survey administered in 2009 and 2013. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate whether factors associated with the military lifestyle (i.e., mobility, dwelling) predicted spousal employment status and income while controlling for socio-demographic characteristics of CAF personnel and their spouses. Results: The results showed that factors associated with the military lifestyle had a significant impact on CAF spousal employment and income. Discussion: These findings broaden our knowledge of the barriers faced by CAF spouses and will help the CAF strengthen support programs and services to improve CAF spousal employment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207