Applying the Contextual Control Model (COCOM) to the Identification of Situation Awareness Requirements for Tactical Army Commanders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tactical command and control (C2) operations under conditions of complexity, uncertainty, stress, and time pressure impose significant cognitive demands on the Tactical Army Commanders' (TAC) ability to successfully prosecute their missions. The objective of the present study was to apply Hollnagel's (1998) Contextual Control Model (COCOM) to the identification of time-critical Situation Awareness (SA) requirements for TACs engaged in time-critical tactical C2 operations. SA requirements relevant to the successful completion of a broad range of tactical C2 missions – convoy escort, checkpoint security, combat, and cordon and search – were identified. These SA requirements were then prioritized into a subset of ‘critical’ SA requirements and then further analyzed in terms of classifying them into one of four COCOM control modes (i.e., strategic, tactical, opportunistic and scrambled). Through this analysis, areas that impact the development of decision aids, and other forms of decision support techniques, for TACs were identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".