MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047899843 · doi:10.1177/0095327x0202800303

Post-Communist Civil-Military Reform in Poland and Hungary: Progress and Problems

2002· article· en· W2047899843 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Yaniszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunismAlliancePolitical scienceContext (archaeology)DemocracyLegislationPublic administrationProcurementCommunist stateSpanish Civil WarLawPolitical economySociologyPoliticsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article critically analyzes post-Communist Polish and Hungarian civil-military reforms in the context of five issues: (1) the dismantling of Communist-era control mechanisms; (2) the establishment of clear and constitutionally-guaranteed lines of civilian authority; (3) the enactment of necessary legislation, rules, and regulations to put into effect a system of democratic oversight; (4) the reorganization of military structures; and (5) the provision of sufficient resources for military reform and operations. Although both states were sufficiently reformed to allow for their ascension to the NATO alliance in early 1999, this study comes to a more positive overall assessment of Poland's reform efforts because most key civil-military reforms have either been completed or are moving (albeit sometimes quite slowly) in a positive direction. In the case of Hungary, significant progress has also occurred, but the reform program-which got off to a fast start has slowed considerably and may be threatened with reverses by a severe budgetary and procurement crisis that shows few (if any) signs of improving.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207