MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211016176 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0033

Working together to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces

2021· article· en· W3211016176 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrea Brown, Heather Millman, Bethany Easterbrook, Alexandra Heber, Rosemary Park, Ruth A. Lanius, Anthony Nazarov, Rakesh Jetly, Ruth Stanley-Aikens, Carleigh Sanderson, Christina Hutchins, Kathy Darte, Amy Hall, Suzette Brémault‐Phillips, Lorraine Smith‐MacDonald, Daphne Doak, T. W. H. Oakley, Andrew A. Nicholson, Mina Pichtikova, Patrick Smith, Ashlee Mulligan, Corinne Byerlay, Margaret C. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of AlbertaDepartment of National DefenceWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaHomewood Research InstituteRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreVeterans Affairs CanadaQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourHarassmentSexual misconductMisconductMilitary justicePsychologyCriminologyMilitary personnelSexual abusePsychiatryMedicinePolitical scienceSuicide preventionPoison controlSocial psychologyLawMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LAY SUMMARY In 2015, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) implemented Operation HONOUR to eliminate sexual misconduct (SM) in the military. Sexual assault, inappropriate sexual behaviours, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination are all types of SM. Experiencing SM can result in depression, substance abuse, physical health problems, and even posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite Operation HONOUR, SM still happens in the CAF. At this time, many groups are working together to address SM and to support those who have experienced SM. Canadian-based researchers, policy makers, military members, Veterans, and clinicians are collaborating to identify new approaches to training, culture change, research, and treatment relating to SM in the CAF. The end goal of working together is to minimize SM in the CAF and ensure the health and safety of all CAF members and Veterans.

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)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0510.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207