Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little doubt that culture is the “secret sauce” that allows some armies to perform at a remarkably higher level than others. However, soldiers are not only members of an army; they are also part of a government bureaucracy and citizens of a state. This paper considers the effect of national, government and army cultures on the Canadian Army during coalition operations of the 1990s and 2000s. The paper argues that as a liberal and relatively non-corrupt country, Canada’s national culture created stresses in coalitions where partner militaries permitted illegal activities and did not respect women soldiers. Canadian government culture affected operations through its lack of experience and concern for military matters and low strategic analysis capacity. Canadian troops were deployed without adequate resources on missions with poorly defined objectives. Canadian Army culture – oriented to mechanized combat operations – supported strong operational performance and effective links with American, British and French partners. However, it created great internal stresses in stability operations where soldiers witnessed atrocities but could not intervene. The paper questions whether current levels of cultural training within the Army can be effective given competition with other training requirements and the short duration of field assignments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".