Enhancing Mental Readiness in Military Personnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore how the psychological literature on stress and coping might inform military training programs to enhance "mental readiness" as a method to develop the baseline psychological resiliency of military personnel. Accordingly, mental readiness training involves an integrated approach, infusing the principles of emotional, cognitive and behavioral control in the context of realistic military training. More specifically, in selected training situations, instructors would note physiological and cognitive responses to stress, how these responses may affect soldiers reactions, and the decisions made and the course of action taken, as well as how these factors interact. Trainers also would provide instruction in the techniques of maintaining cognitive and emotional control in situ, demonstrating these techniques as required until a specific level of proficiency is achieved. In this way, the valuable lessons and training points of stress management are more intrinsically applicable and salient to soldiers, the techniques more contiguously practiced, and the benefits of these techniques more immediately experienced in operationally relevant contexts. Thus, integrating these principles and tools into relevant training opportunities encourages the reflexive application of mental readiness responses in the same way that technical proficiencies become reflexive in military contexts. We review two studies that have particular application to a mental readiness approach. We conclude with a discussion of specific training issues relevant to mental readiness preparation, and the placement of mental readiness training in the continuum of military mental health training, services and programs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".