MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402290394 · doi:10.1177/0095327x241269905

Re-examining Willingness to Fight for One’s Country: Exploring Nature of Conflict and Citizenship Status Effects in the United States and Canada

2024· article· en· W4402290394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher A. Simon, Nicholas P. Lovrich, Kenneth G. Verboncoeur, Michael C. Moltz

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPolitical economyPsychologyDevelopment economicsSociologyLawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals’ willingness to fight for their country has garnered significant attention in research; yet, the intricate connection between such willingness with individual identity, conflict type, and personal values remains underexplored. Through deductive exploratory quantitative analysis, this study examines two potentially interrelated factors—social identity and nature of conflict concerns—in the context of two multi-ethnic, immigrant-rich Western democracies in the 21st century. Using cross-sectional national survey data and a social identity framework, a quantitative comparative analysis of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) member nations Canada and the United States reveals a relationship between conflict concerns, immigrant identity, and willingness to fight; generally speaking, immigrants are more willing to fight for their host nations than the native-born individuals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207