MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404608811 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2023-0108

Help seeking for self-reported alcohol problems among serving and ex-serving personnel: A cross-sectional study

2024· article· en· W4404608811 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rachael Gribble, Sharon A. M. Stevelink, Panagiotis Spanakis, Laura Goodwin, Nicola T. Fear

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPsychologyMedicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Research has found low levels of help seeking for alcohol problems among serving and ex-serving military populations. This study aimed to understand the prevalence of, and factors associated with, help seeking for self-reported alcohol problems among serving and ex-serving UK military personnel. Methods: Regular and full-time reserve serving and ex-serving personnel in a large UK military cohort (N = 6,199) were asked whether they had an alcohol problem in the past three years and whether and where they sought help. Associations between help seeking from formal medical services (general practitioner/medical officer, hospital doctor) and socio-demographic, military, life, and health factors were examined using weighted survey methods. Results: = 0.032) were less likely to have previously accessed formal support. Discussion: Help seeking for self-reported alcohol problems among UK serving and ex-serving personnel remains low. Future research should prioritize understanding pathways into help seeking and target stigma regarding accessing clinical support among both serving and ex-serving personnel.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207