MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226321478 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0037

Success in life after service: A perspective on conceptualizing the well-being of military Veterans

2022· article· en· W4226321478 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James M. Thompson, Dawne Vogt, David Pedlar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Well-beingMilitary serviceService (business)PsychologyWork (physics)Public relationsSocial psychologySociologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapistBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LAY SUMMARY Military members want to do well when they leave service. Good well-being is one way of thinking about success in the transition to life after service. The word well-being has different meanings to different people, which can be confusing. To help Veterans, it must be clearly defined. Some see well-being as something inside a person; others see it as how people are doing in the outside world. People can have poorer or better well-being in many areas of life, not just in how they feel. This article describes a way of thinking about well-being that can work for different purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207