MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299406010 · doi:10.1080/21635781.2022.2098885

A Post-Traumatic Growth Perspective on PTSD: Implications for Those Who Have Served and Their Partners

2022· article· en· W4299406010 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Norris, Kimberley Smith Evans, Heidi Cramm, Linna Tam‐Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary Behavioral Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityCentre for Social InnovationMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPosttraumatic growthPsychologyService memberConstruct (python library)Perspective (graphical)Relevance (law)Clinical psychologyMilitary personnelTraumatic stressMilitary servicePsychological resiliencePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research emphasizing the negative psychosocial impacts of service-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for military members, veterans, and their families is well established. Post-traumatic growth (PTG), positive psychological change resulting from managing adverse life events and situations, is an alternate outcome considered in research focusing on the impacts of serious illness and other life-altering circumstances on families. Little is known, however, about the processes that create and sustain PTG within military and veteran family systems. This paper will review conceptualizations of PTG and consider its relevance as a construct for analysis of outcomes related to the experiences of partners of military members and veterans living with PTSD and other operational stress injuries.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilitary Behavioral HealthSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207