MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005988227 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2014.977314

Cultural differences: transformation and the future of American–Canadian defence relations

2014· article· en· W2005988227 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Strategy and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsOptimismExploitPolitical scienceTransformation (genetics)Order (exchange)Revolution in Military AffairsPolitical economySociologyMilitary scienceLawBusinessEpistemologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of an emerging Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) came to light in American military thinking in the late 1980s, and largely dealt with a new generation of military technologies which promised to alter the nature of modern warfare. In order to exploit these new technologies to their fullest, U.S. military planners set in motion the process of transformation. This article posits that transformation is very much the unique product of U.S. cultural influences. U.S. strategic culture is driven by technological optimism, while Canadian strategic culture is very conservative. As such, it is futile for the Canadian strategic community to attempt to copy directly transformation policies from the U.S. Canada must seek to develop its own approach to transformation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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