MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407393360 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2023-0104

Toward increasing relevance of the U.S. Army’s Deployment Cycle Resilience Training: A Quality Improvement Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4407393360 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susannah K Knust, Laurel C. Booth, Kelly A. Toner, John Eric M. Novosel-Lingat, Amanda L. Adrian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Software deploymentRelevance (law)Training (meteorology)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)AeronauticsEngineering managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Deployment Cycle Resilience Training (DCRT) is a rebranded and revised version of the initial deployment resilience training called Battlemind, that was in effect from 2014 to 2018. Methods: To maintain the relevance and utility of resilience training centred on the deployment cycle, the current version of DCRT was formally evaluated using mixed methodologies by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Results: The evaluation team found that both soldiers and their spouses reported predominantly positive ratings for the pre-deployment and reintegration modules of the training. In addition to reporting the training to be satisfactory and relevant and reporting an intention to apply the skills beyond the deployment cycle, soldiers and spouses also identified areas for improvement related to addressing the training's relevancy and relatability. Discussion: To continue improving the training, the evaluation team recommends that the training include more examples from the army reserve and the National Guard, and that the support network (i.e., circle of support) be widened beyond spouses. These, and additional recommendations, are further discussed.

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)0.184
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1840.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207