Bibliographic record
Abstract
This monograph considers whether operational art and the operational level of conflict are viable constructs for Canada or other middle-powers. Like most of America's close allies, Canada quickly followed the US lead by adopting these operational concepts into its service and joint doctrine. However, these concepts are framed in a great-power context of large-force, large-theater, high-intensity operations that is of questionable relevance to middle-powers, and their small, tactically focused militaries. This study first examines operational doctrine and theory in order to distill operational art into terms applicable across the spectrum of conflict and scale of operations. It then explores Canadian strategic imperatives and the Canadian Army's historical experience, to determine if and how the operational art and level have been practiced in the past, and whether they are feasible, acceptable and suitable constructs for the Canadian military today. This monograph shows that in today's complex operating environment, Canada is coming under increasing pressure to take more prominent roles in coalition operations. To meet this challenge, and to ensure Canada retains the ability to exert strategic influence, the Canadian Forces need to refocus on fielding salient, self-contained forces that can think operationally and function at the operational level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".