Military Stressors and the Well-Being of Adolescents in Canadian Armed Forces Families: The Roles of Relationships with Parents and Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents in military families may be at increased risk for psychopathologies because they are simultaneously exposed to both normative developmental stressors and the challenges of the military lifestyle.Currently, there is a paucity of research on the specific risks and protective factors related to the well-being of adolescents in families of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).Accordingly, there were three primary objectives in this doctoral research: (1) to examine the perceptions of adolescents in CAF families about the challenges they experience as compared to adolescents in non-military families;(2) to investigate the associations among exposure to frequent relocation and deployment, affective reactivity to relocation and deployment, adolescent-parent relationships and peer relationships, and well-being; and (3) to explore the potential moderating roles of adolescents' parent and peer relationships in the relations between exposure/affective reactivity to military stressors and well-being.Participants were N = 201 adolescents (117 females, 81 males, 3 did not indicate), aged 14 -19 years (M age = 16.44,SD = 1.59) from Regular Force CAF families.Participantsresponded to an open-ended question about the challenges they believed they experienced in comparison to adolescents in non-military families.In addition, participants completed assessments of their affective reactivity to relocation and deployment, the quality of their relationships with parents and peers, and their well-being.Results from thematic analysis revealed that frequent relocation as well as frequent and lengthy deployment were perceived as the main challenges that adolescents believed their counterparts in non-military families did not experience.Results from correlational analyses and hierarchical linear regressions revealed that exposure to frequent relocation
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".