Adding insult to injury: Exploring the relation between moral injury and military sexual trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The experience of military sexual trauma (MST) is exceptional in that the environment in which harm occurs, the military, may play a role in the extent of harm incurred. MST may contribute to the onset of moral injury (MI), and its associated sequelae, through the occurrence of perpetration-based and betrayal-based acts that violate deeply held beliefs. This article aims to address a gap in the current literature and examine existing literature about the relation between MST and MI. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to identify and synthesize the literature on the relation between MST and MI. Five databases were searched - MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL - for English-language peer-reviewed articles. Results: The literature reviewed points to multiple pathways for the development of MI following MST, including through perpetuation and betrayal, while also highlighting potential consequences of MST-related MI. Moreover, MST itself may be a morally injurious event based in betrayal, which, in turn, may benefit from an MI-focused intervention approach. Discussion: This narrative review collates and provides a preliminary interpretation of findings in the literature surrounding the relation between MI and MST, thus stimulating and informing future research, as well as potentially enhancing the conceptualization of MI. Future implications may include consideration of the role of MI in trauma-informed clinical treatment options for MST, the development of health policies to support persons with lived experience of MST, and the provision of enhanced context and the foundation for a change in military culture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".