MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409982562 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2024-0043

Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

2025· article· en· W4409982562 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alla Skomorovsky, Justin Chamberland, Nadine Charanek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological safetyPsychologyPsychological healthApplied psychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: aims to ensure its Defence Team (DT) personnel's needs are met. Various Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) strategies focus on enhancing personnel well-being and organizational culture. This study assessed perceptions and experiences related to psychological health, organizational culture, and retention among DT personnel. The goal was to explore relationships between workplace factors and outcomes among Regular Force (Reg F) CAF members, Primary Reserve (P Res) CAF members, and DND public service (PS) personnel, and to determine whether associations between certain workplace factors and outcomes of interest differed across the three groups. Methods: An online survey was administered to stratified random samples from each component in the spring or summer of 2022. The final sample included 4,463 Reg F members, 1,318 P Res members, and 2,866 DND PS personnel. Results: Despite moderate morale, burnout, psychological distress, and affective commitment to the CAF/DND, DT personnel are generally satisfied, engaged, and not planning to leave within the next 12 months. Several workplace factors, particularly pride in organizational membership and perceptions of organizational support, were associated with outcomes of interest among all groups. Meaningful work was a key driver only among CAF members. The strength of associations between workplace factors and outcomes of interest varied across components. Discussion: These results aim to help CAF/DND leadership foster DT personnel's well-being and improve the organizational culture, with tailored recommendations that address the specific needs of each component.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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