An Uphill Battle: A Qualitative Case Study of Growth Experiences of Veterans in the Canadian Armed Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth is best understood in the literature as a process of prospering as individuals work through experiences of stress or trauma. Most researchers have focused on service members or veterans of the United States Armed Forces and have largely linked post-traumatic growth with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, growth may result from a variety of injury or illness. Objective: To examine the potential for growth amongst Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) veterans and explore contextual influences. Methods: As a multi-case study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with three veterans who experienced a career-threatening, life-altering injury or illness within the last 10 years. Veterans were asked about their recovery experiences and changes they noticed within themselves as a result. Results: Veterans identified five dominant areas of change or challenge: power of the uniform, relationships, new perspectives, complexity of support, and lessons about the self. Conclusion: The findings provide a snapshot into the process of growth in the CAF and how context played a role in this process. The study highlighted a need for more specific support for struggling veterans and support directed toward their full recovery: physically and mentally. From the results, veterans demonstrated their ability to achieve life improvements following challenging times.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".