MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408367355 · doi:10.1177/0095327x241312206

The Impact of Military Sexual Misconduct on the Deployment Experiences of Woman-Identifying Canadian Veterans

2025· article· en· W4408367355 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Lade, Andrea Brown, Kim Ritchie, Heather Milman, Rosemary Park, Alexandra Heber, Ruth A. Lanius, Kenneth L. Davis, Heather E. McNeely, Margaret C. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityTrent UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentSexual misconductMilitary personnelPsychologyMilitary deploymentCriminologyComputer securityPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research examined how military sexual misconduct (MSM) impacts the perceived experiences of unit cohesion in a sample of woman-identifying Canadian military Veterans. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 veterans, asking questions about deployment-related factors (e.g., rewarding/challenging aspects). Although MSM was not explicitly probed for, it was widely discussed in relation to participants’ experiences of unit cohesion. Thematic analysis yielded three themes describing participants’ perceived feelings of unit cohesion—value, acceptance, and unity. In contexts where MSM was present, participants described feelings of being undermined, resulting in a degraded experience of unit cohesion. In contexts where MSM was absent, participants described value, acceptance, and unity as being improved, as well as an enhanced experience of unit cohesion. These findings provide an exploratory model by which to consider the impact of MSM on the gendered experience of unit cohesion.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207