Development and evolution of commitment profiles among military recruits: Implications for turnover intention and well-being
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the development and consequences of commitment profiles among Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recruits who completed surveys at the end of basic training (N = 3998) and three (N = 636) and nine (N = 612) months later. The surveys included measures of affective, normative, and continuance commitment as well as measures developed by the CAF to assess recruits' experiences, career intentions, and well-being. Latent profile analyses of commitment at the end of basic training revealed four quantitatively distinct profiles (i.e., profiles differing in elevation but not shape). Strength of commitment related positively with perceived values fit, support from instructors and fellow recruits, and well-being, and negatively with turnover intention. Analyses of longitudinal data obtained following basic training revealed a stable and more differentiated 6-profile structure reflecting weak, exchange-based (continuance-dominant) and value-based (strong affective alone or in combination with strong normative and continuance) commitment. Value-based profiles were associated with greater perceived values fit, supervisor support, and well-being, and lower turnover intentions. The relative advantages of identifying the more nuanced commitment mind-sets reflected in commitment profiles is discussed along with the relevance of early onboarding experiences for the development of value-based commitment and retention.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it