Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE U.S. ARMY is simultaneously transforming and fighting Global War on Terrorism alongside foreign partners who are also transforming and aggressively working advance battlefield interoperability. One of best venues for that important work is re-energized 60-year-old umbrella organization known as ABCA Armies' Program--America, Britain, Canada, Australia, and most recently New Zealand, which became a member in 2006. Although not a formal alliance, ABCA has become an interoperability standard-bearer focused on challenges associated with our current operating environment. Professional Army leaders need understand ABCA, its rich history, its transformation, and what it is doing enhance global coalition readiness. History ABCA evolved from a World War II coalition, a security relationship between United States and her Anglo-Saxon allies based on a common culture, historical experience, and language. (1) The ABCA Armies' Program was seeded in 1946 when British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery recommended U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower that America, Britain, and Canada should cooperate closely in all defense matters. Added Montgomery, Discussions should deal not only with standardization, but should cover whole field of cooperation and combined action in event of war. (2) Later that year, British Government concluded that these three countries should consider feasibility of standardizing weapons, tactics, and training of their armed forces. (3) The 1947 Plan Effect agreement led ABCA's standardization program among American, British, and Canadian armies. Its aim was remove doctrinal and materiel obstacles complete cooperation. (4) The 1954 and 1964 Basic Standardization Agreements replaced 1947 Plan. The 1964 Agreement remains in effect today; however, a new memorandum of understanding improve cooperation and program effectiveness is expected be finalized by 2007. The 1964 Agreement states that program's aim is ensure fullest cooperation and and to achieve highest possible degree of interoperability among signatory armies through materiel and non-materiel (5) Not surprisingly, given peculiar nature of multinational arrangements, standardization and interoperability have been hit-and-miss among ABCA armies. Historically, program's success was measured by production of cold war-era tactical standards and pamphlets and hosted seminars or exercises. ABCA Transforms In June 2002, ABCA Executive Council--composed of four-star-level generals---concluded that new conditions and circumstances of our rapidly changing strategic and operational environments had outstripped program's culture, structure, procedures, and practices. It was time revitalize organization and respond new global security requirements. A special working party identified four distinct phases of work: strategic assessment; vision, mission, and enduring goals; prioritization of efforts; and business practices. The group examined international security environment and concluded that the extensive range of threats requires ABCA armies address those areas where it can achieve significant advances in interoperability ... rather than allocating scarce resources an expansive range of areas that may only achieve minimal outcomes. (6) Focusing program's limited resources on a smaller universe of advances in interoperability gave direction team's work on a new vision, mission, and goals. The new vision statement is much shorter than old one. It focuses like a laser on effective integration of armies' capabilities in a joint environment. The new mission seeks optimize interoperability through collaboration and standardization. The goals are ambitious: relevance and responsiveness; standardization, integration and interoperability; mutual understanding; sharing knowledge; and efficiency and effectiveness. …
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".