MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402729720 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1379244

Strengthening the military stoic tradition: enhancing resilience in military service members and public safety personnel through functional disconnection and reconnection

2024· article· en· W4402729720 on OpenAlexaff
Megan McElheran, Franklin C Annis, Hanna A Duffy, Tessa Chomistek

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMental Health Research Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisconnectionPsychologyPsychological interventionMental healthPsychological resilienceMilitary serviceApplied psychologyMilitary personnelService memberSocial psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses operational stress injuries (OSIs) among military service members (SM) and public safety personnel (PSP) resulting from prolonged exposure to potentially psychologically traumatic events (PPTEs). While psychotherapeutic interventions for post-traumatic stress injuries (PTSIs) are well established, there is a significant gap in evidence-based mental health training programs addressing proactive mitigation of negative outcomes from PPTEs. Building on the Functional Disconnection/Functional Reconnection (FD/FR) model, we introduce FD/FR 2, emphasizing early identification and management of psychological risks. FD/FR 2 discusses the practice of emotional suppression, or "pseudo-stoicism," and its potential negative impact on mental health. By integrating authentic Stoic principles, FD/FR 2 offers practical exercises to enhance resilience and well-being, addressing a critical need in current training approaches for military SM and PSP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicResilience and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→