Supporting Asynchronous Dialogs in the Communication of Army Operations Orders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An empirical study was completed to study the use of an asynchronous multimedia communication tool to support dialogs during a joint forces military exercise. Ten captains, majors and colonels from Canada, France, Germany, Israel and the US who participated in the joint forces exercise had the option of using this multimedia communication tool whenever they felt it would help them to communicate information to commanders in other units. Two of the messages consisted of one-way communications. The remaining 13 were asynchronous dialogs. In these messages, the officers: • Made extensive use of pointing, drawing and embedded written notes • Used these asynchronous dialogs to detect and repair misconceptions that arose from live face-to-face briefings (6/13 dialogs) • Used these asynchronous dialogs to share expertise while developing a plan (13/13 dialogs). On Likert scales (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree), the ratings for usefulness and usability were 6.2 and 6.4, respectively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".