MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940630550

What is Spacepower and Does it Constitute a Revolution in Military Affairs

2002· article· en· W1940630550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lt. Col. Peter L. Hays

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)FrontierPolitical scienceRevolution in Military AffairsCivil affairsOuter spaceCategorizationMilitary theorySurvivabilityControl (management)LawMilitary scienceOperations researchEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the first question in its title by examining ways to describe and categorize space activities. It examines the second question by using analogies between previous revolutions in military affairs and spacepower. It describes spacepower three ways: 1) space activity sectors (civil, commercial, intelligence, and defense); 2) military space mission areas (space support, force enhancement, space control, and force application); and 3) Lupton’s four military space doctrines (sanctuary, survivability, control, and high-ground). It also discusses other ways to view space: as an economic center of gravity and a global utility, in terms of seapower and airpower analogies, as a frontier, and in terms of religious implications and the Overview Effect. The paper argues that spacepower will not represent an autonomous revolution in military affairs until space is weaponized.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207