MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939051440

Mythology and the Air campaign in the Liberation of Iraq

2004· article· en· W1939051440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Major J.R. McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyAdversaryBattlefieldPower (physics)Political sciencePolitical economySociologyHistoryComputer securityAncient historyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The air campaign for the 2003 liberation of Iraq has led to the development of two faulty myths about the nature of the war and air power. The first myth was that the air campaign saw land forces and air power were applied simultaneously. The second was that the air campaign represented the failure of strategic applications of air power. The first myth (simultaneity) is flawed in that the coalition's air forces had ten and half years to 'prepare the battlefield' through reconnaissance due to the southern no-fly zone. Through that time, and certainly in the three weeks leading to the war, the coalition's air forces exploited every opportunity to engage in the suppression of enemy air defences. The second myth is faulty as it fails to account for decisions about the force structure required to liberate Iraq, the timing of changes in the air campaign and the relationship with the situation on the ground.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.081
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicAnthropology: Ethics, History, CultureFrench-language works237,207