Hazing in the military: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY Initiation rituals have existed in the military for a very long time. The goal of these traditions is generally to introduce (new) military personnel to the organization, to learn about hierarchies, practices, and norms, and to make sure personnel are committed to and identify with the armed forces. However, hazing can also occur. Hazing refers to initiation activities that are abusive and include harassment and humiliation. These activities can cause severe mental and physical harm to the health and well-being of military personnel. Hazing can also negatively affect the functioning and effectiveness of individuals and entire units in times of peace and war. Many military organizations and scholars agree that hazing is dangerous and unethical. However, hazing still exists. This scoping review was conducted to gain more insight into what is known about hazing in the military, why it occurs, and what may be done to prevent it. Findings show that more research is needed, and military organizations may have to rethink their approaches to hazing if they want to prevent it and protect personnel from harm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".