Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an article in the Weekend Australian of 31 July–1-August 2004 titled ‘Defence derailed’, Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith wrote: It is apparent that the [Australian] defence organisation has become dysfunctional. It is our view that there should be a fundamental review of what has gone wrong. It is time to consider whether the top management structure, which is built around a diarchy shared by the secretary of the Department of Defence and the chief of the Australian Defence force, should be changed— because it no longer seems to work the way it should. As a result of this and other criticisms, in August 2006 Defence Minister Brendan Nelson appointed former senior Kennett Government bureaucrat and prominent Melbourne businesswoman Elizabeth Proust to oversee a review of management in the Australian Defence Department. The Proust Committee’s terms of reference are to examine and assess organisational efficiency and effectiveness in the Defence organisation, and to make recommendations with particular regard to: • Decision-making and business process, having regard to best practice in organisations of comparable size and complexity; • The appropriateness of and need for military personnel in non-operational or executive positions in the organisation and the efficacy of Defence preparation for senior postings; • Structure, process and procedures for managing information and providing timely and accurate information to stakeholders; • The adequacy of the information management systems which support processes and reporting requirements. The Proust Committee’s reporting date is the second quarter of 2007. The Working Paper which follows is an adaptation of the author’s presentation to the Proust Committee on 1 November 2006 on the abolition of the defence diarchy in New Zealand in 1990, and the advantages and disadvantages of that decision.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".