New Fighter Aircraft Acquisitions in<scp>B</scp>razil and<scp>I</scp>ndia: Why Not Buy<scp>A</scp>merican?
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
How do states decide where to source arms? Drawing on theories of international relations, we consider the recent fighter aircraft competitions in Brazil and India, and analyze why the U.S.‐made aircraft lost to their European rivals. Official statements offered by the Brazilian and Indian governments have cited inferior aircraft performance, technology‐sharing issues, and prices. These explanations may be valid, but their main purpose is to direct attention away from the fact that military procurement is, above all, a matter of international politics and policy. Using analytical eclecticism as our guide, we selectively combine constructivist, liberal, and realist theoretical elements to provide a more comprehensive explanation of why Lockheed Martin and Boeing failed to sell fighters to Brazil and India. Related Articles Catalinac , Amy L . 2007 . “.” Politics & Policy 35 (): 58 – 100 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00049.x/abstract Quinn , Adam . 2007 . “.” Politics & Policy 35 (): 522 – 547 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00071.x/abstract Rosen , Amanda M . 2015 . “.” Politics & Policy 43 (): 30 – 58 . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12105/abstract Related Media So , Vishnu . 2012 . “.” NDTV . December 8. Duration: 16 min, 42 sec. http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/bigger-higher-faster/the-story-of-the-rafale/257581 . 2015 . “.” Notícias Militares. January 10. Duration: 3 min, 38 sec (in Brazilian Portuguese). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P12stwG1jA
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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