Strategic Developments In The Western Pacific: Anti-Access/Area Denial And The Airsea Battle Concept
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
This article offers an initial review and assessment of the US 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review’s direction to the US Air Force and Navy to develop an AirSea Battle concept for defeating adversaries equipped with sophisticated anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. The article contends that the development of these A2/AD systems, particularly by China in the Western Pacific, could become an operational challenge to the freedom of action of military forces in the region. This will require being able to maintain, and if necessary, re-establish freedom of action in the Western Pacific. The article begins by assessing the strategic context of China’s A2/AD strategy. It then goes on to describe in greater detail the AirSea Battle concept as a response to A2/AD strategies. Finally, it assesses the AirSea Battle concept’s utility from a coalition perspective. The article highlights a requirement for increased anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, research on underwater superiority, and the creation of a Centre for Advanced Underwater Warfare Excellence (CAUWWE).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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