Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Seven years following the worst asymmetric air attack in U.S. history, the time is right for a fresh examination of U.S. air defense strategy. The optimum solution to the air defense problem is defeating the threat as far from U.S. borders as possible. As a bilateral treaty with Canada, NORAD expands the umbrella of U.S. air defense thousands of miles to the north by utilizing Canadian air defense capabilities. However, the airspace beyond the southern borders of the U.S. remains woefully unprotected. This project examines the feasibility of restructuring NORAD as a trilateral air defense agreement to include Mexico, thereby creating a common continental air defense approach. The following analysis considers relevant history, politics, inter-service cultures and economic linkages along with perceptions of national security threats. The research reveals the limits placed upon the Mexican Air Force by the Mexican Constitution, Estrada Doctrine and its subordination to the Mexican Army. These limitations prohibit their participation in a trilateral air defense agreement without complex constitutional amendments. Recommendations are provided to increase Mexican air defense capabilities without changes to the Mexican constitution.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".