Transmigration, Voluntary Service and Complementary Careers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Present studies underscore two features shaping the nature of reservists’ military employment. First, they see themselves as evaluated by regulars as a “second-class military” or as “weekend warriors” who are less professional than them. Second, reservists juggle multiple responsibilities, including military service, civilian employment and family obligations. Hence, one would expect reservists to be less satisfied with their military experience and to identify to a lesser extent with the armed forces. Recent surveys of the Canadian Armed Forces, however, reveal a puzzling set of findings since reservists demonstrate notably lower levels of work-life conflict than regulars and are more satisfied and more strongly identify with the country&s;s military. We offer two explanations for this discrepancy deriving from the analytical metaphor of reservists as “transmigrants.” The first is that reservists’ decisions regarding service have become more conditional and contingent than in the past; and the second is that the pursuit of multiple careers should be seen not only sequential, as is often the case, but as potentially simultaneous, and that reservists enter service to achieve forms of self-actualization and self-fulfillment that are not readily available in their civilian occupations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".