Interagency and Civil-Military Coordination: Lessons From a Survey of Afghanistan and Liberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing field coordination processes commonly have two main outcomes: they result in mere “information sharing” and have no real coordination impact; conversely, they produce a kind of forced, “false coherence”, referring to superficial changes in language and formal adherence to new frameworks, driven by the agenda of the actor with the most power and resources. Some key factors contributing to this problem; coordination processes often assume agreement among actors on strategies and don’t provide opportunities for inclusive and meaningful multi-stakeholder dialogue; power asymmetries block real dialogue; funding relationships and competition limit the ability of existing coordination processes to achieve some level of common intent; groups hold different notions of the purpose of coordination in the first place, ranging widely from greater centralized control, to democratic consensus-building, to credible, reliable information exchange. However, in working “side by side” in such settings and preserving their autonomous mandates and roles, civilian and military agencies can still improve the way their efforts link up and support the bigger peace.
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 | 0.000 | 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".