Resilient Parents… Resilient Communities: A Pilot Study Trialing the Bounce Back and Thrive! Resilience-Training Program With Military Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The resilience of Canadian military families (CMFs) - the main support of the Canadian Armed Forces service members (SMs) - is imperative. The Canadian Armed Forces aims to ensure that SMs and their families are resilient and SMs ready to respond when called upon for combat, peacekeeping or pandemic/disaster-response. Family concerns, however, can realistically distract SMs from the mission, potentially compromising themselves, their unit and the mission. Resilience-training programs such as Bounce Back and Thrive! (BBT) can help families manage the realities of military life. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to evaluate suitability of BBT implementation by Military Family Resource Centers (MFRCs), including whether BBT: (1) fosters resilience-building among parents, (2) facilitates CMF resilience-building, (3) can be contextualized for CMFs, and (4) supports MFRCs in cultivating a culture of resilience. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative design was used. BBT was offered to parents face-to-face. Participants completed focus groups after the first 6 sessions, final 4 sessions, and one-year post-intervention. Data was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Nine military parents participated. Four major themes resulted: (1) military parent resilience-building, (2) CMF resilience-building, (3) BBT program feedback and contextualization, and (4) MFRCs as community resilience hubs. DISCUSSION: BBT enabled parents to gain a new perspective on resilience, engage in dialogue and intentionally role model resilience skills. Military-specific BBT contextualization and online-delivery formats would increase suitability and access for CMFs. Access to resilience programs delivered through MFRCs would support CMFs. Further research is warranted.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".