Embracing the women: A longitudinal view of attitudes to women service personnel among their peers, 1994 and 2010
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK, women are excluded from ground combat roles and other specific close quarter specialities. There have been two assessments of this position by the Ministry of Defence (2002 and 2010) with both concluding that the restriction should remain but with different rationales supplied for the retention. Indeed the 2010 assessment, based on combat effectiveness, was unsupported by the evidence presented from interviews with combat personnel. Based on independent research carried out in two studies of 1994-2000 and 2010 involving interviews with junior Army personnel on their attitudes, expectations and assumptions, and the interview evidence from the 2010 assessment, this paper will examine the changing cultural perceptions of serving personnel towards the acceptance of women in previously all-male roles and the implications for the legal position of the exclusion of women from those roles on the basis of combat effectiveness. The paper will make recommendations on the basis of the findings for any change in MoD policy towards women serving in the armed forces.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it