Subordinates ' Assessments of Leadership in the Canadian Army I AB-41-Paper Subordinates ' Assessments of Leadership in the Canadian Army
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, in response to direction from the Commander of the Army, a research team conducted a series of focus groups with some 900 service personnel to evaluate "morale in the Army. " In their 1995 final report entitled "Modernization of the quality of life in the Army-Final report, " the team offered a total of 110 recommendations (later refined into 39 critical content areas) considered significant for the improvement of quality of life (QOL) in the Army. Between March and July 1996, Commander LFC issued a series of five action directives in which he stated his intent to change what he could with a view to improving QOL in the Army. At the same time, he directed that subordinate commanders take what actions they could. In 1997, the Personnel Research Team (PRT) was commissioned to assist in the development of indices by which the effectiveness of improvements could be measured. In response to this request, Eyres (1997) recommended that PRT's "Conditions of Service Questionnaire " (COSQ), now known as the Quality of Life (QOL) Survey, become the primary tool with which to gauge the success of measures implemented. A
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".