The Paradox of Military Training: Survival on the Streets among Homeless Veterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This secondary analysis of the first national study on homelessness among veterans of the Canadian Forces (CF) and Allied Forces (AF) explores homeless veterans’ survival on the streets as both helped and hindered by their military training. An interpretive phenomenological approach was used as the methodology for the study. Although all fifty-four transcripts from the primary study were reviewed, fifteen were chosen because these participants spoke extensively about their lives on the streets. Military training as a double-edged sword for homeless veterans is the overarching analytical interpretation that emerged. Common sub-themes were identified until an understanding of homeless veterans’ survival on the streets was attained. The three sub-themes illustrate the paradox. Sub-theme one : Although their military training prepares them for survival on the streets such as sleeping rough, they may keep their distance from others and may therefore have difficulty in accessing services. Sub-theme two : The training to “fight” if directed onto civilian society can result in difficulties obtaining and retaining employment, difficulties in relationships, and difficulties with the law. Sub-theme three : Difficulties developing an autonomous adult identity as normal development can be interrupted by military training that precludes independent decision-making, which is a required adult coping ability. Health-care service providers need to recognize, validate, and respond to the effects - positive and negative - of life in the armed forces for homeless veterans in order to provide the best care. Building upon their strengths attained during their military training and education about conflict resolution, assertiveness, and the provision of counselling to build an adult identity post-military are some of the implications from this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".