MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216626065 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0014

‘Healthy Relationships’ campaign: Preventing and addressing family and gender-based violence

2021· article· en· W3216626065 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Carley Robb-Jackson, Sandy Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationNarrativePolitical scienceFace (sociological concept)Unit (ring theory)CriminologyMilitary personnelDomestic violenceSuicide preventionPublic relationsPoison controlPsychologyGender studiesSocial psychologyMedicineSociologyEnvironmental healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LAY SUMMARY Canadian military families face distinct challenges due to the military lifestyle, primarily due to relocation, absences and deployments, and risk of injury and death. Tied to these challenges is the intimate partner relationship and the ability of the family unit to thrive. To support families, Military Family Services (MFS) undertook a collaborative process to create a modernized campaign focused on healthy relationships for Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, Veterans, and their families. The “Healthy Relationships” campaign is a unique social media campaign centred on positive behaviour change, inspiration, and sharing of real military families’ stories. The campaign sought to shift the narrative from previous anti-family-violence messaging to promoting positive, healthy, and equitable relationships. The campaign was successful in its rollout across bases and wings in Canada, Europe, and the United States.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207