Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThe last few decades have seen many features introduced into the world of warfare, with an evident impact on those who go into harm's way on our behalf. In this article, I propose to briefly examine four developments that have brought requirements for military education, and then to think further about what these requirements mean for military educators. The essay will conclude with a real-life example, by sketching how this wave of change translates into military education reform in the Republic of Armenia.The four new elements selected for consideration here are:1. A world of conflict and warfare, for which we must educate our students2. A world of education, featuring lifelong learning, e-learning, and learnercentered education3. New networks of learning, including such examples as the European Higher Education Area, NATO's Defense Institution Building initiative, and the Partnership for Peace Consortium4. Military education reform in emerging democracies, encompassing institutions, curricula, and attitudes.This list is far from complete, and the discussion offered in a brief format such as this can only be superficial at best, but they provide intriguing indicators of how military education - that fascinating bazaar where the military world and the educational world intersect - is addressing the challenges of a military education curriculum that continues to expand and that has embraced some unexpected domains. Who would have predicted fifty years ago that diversity and gender would become features of military education? Such topics find themselves in the curriculum in part because they reflect modern human rights sensitivities and in part because they have operational utility.Continuing Change in a Persistent CultureThe profession of arms may be in some ways one of the most stable and enduring professions on the face of the earth. Military culture and military traditions are shared across national boundaries and across generations. But the business of the profession of arms is highly fluid, and constantly changing. While military traditions and values persist, each mission brings doctrines, tactics, lessons, and thinking. The daily reports of suicide bombers, pilotless drone attacks, and cyber warfare viruses all remind us of the complexity of the old business of warfare. Less visible than combat operations, the work of generating, managing, and sustaining armed forces has become more complicated as well. Governments demand greater financial accountability. Weapons acquisition, logistics, and financial oversight all demand modern business skills. Whole-of-government initiatives and the comprehensive approach are a growing part of the operational fabric, calling for a whole set of knowledge and skills.The business of assembling and sustaining a modern and sophisticated armed force falls to a large extent on the military trainer and the military educator, which means that trainers and educators have a responsibility to understand the impact of developments in the world of defense on military teaching. This involves more than selecting the most important concepts and absorbing them into the military curriculum. The very nature of the curriculum is changing, as many of the demands upon it require a more thorough, more systematic, and indeed a more academic approach. As a result, we find within the traditional training paradigm an increasing component of what has become known as professional military education.1The first question to be asked is, How do we define the modern military education curriculum? The most obvious concern is technical. Officers and soldiers will need technical skills to operate capabilities. A more important challenge is how to use weapons and techniques that have both tactical and strategic applications. The most potent example is perhaps the armed pilotless drone, a weapon that can do the bidding of a company commander in the field, or respond to the direct instructions of a head of state. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".