MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7112023594

Cultural Adaptation in Five Eyes Veterans Transitioning to Civilian Life: A Scoping Review Protocol

2025· other· W7112023594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Protocol (science)Health scienceCultural sensitivityCultural diversity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project hosts materials related to a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)-aligned scoping review protocol examining cultural adaptation among post-9/11 veterans from the Five Eyes nations (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) transitioning from military to civilian life. The review maps how cultural adaptation and related constructs have been defined, measured, and theorized across the literature. It also identifies impacts, interventions, and evidence gaps to guide future research, practice, and policy supporting veteran reintegration. Affiliated Institutions: University of North Texas Health Science Center, College of Nursing The University of Texas at Tyler, College of Nursing and Health Sciences Funding and Institutional Support: The first author (R.S.) is a Jonas Scholar and has received financial support from Jonas Philanthropies to support his doctoral studies. Publication fees were supported by the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Nursing, College of Nursing, University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC). Funders had no role in the design, conduct, analysis, or preparation of this protocol.

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)0.153
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1530.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.013

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→French-language works237,207→