Fundamental Issues in Defense Training and Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defence forces have always invested a great deal of their resources in training. In recent times, changes in the complexity and intensity of operations have reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that warfighters are adequately prepared for the environments in which they are required to work. The emergence of new operational drivers such as asymmetric threats, urban operations, joint and coalition operations and the widespread use of military communications and information technology networks has highlighted the importance of providing warfighters with the competencies required to act in a coordinated, adaptable fashion, and to make effective decisions in environments characterised by large amounts of sometimes ambiguous information. While investment in new technologies can make available new opportunities for action, it is only through effective training that personnel can be made ready to apply their tools in the most decisive and discriminating fashion, and by doing so transform military technology into defence capability.There are many factors which can have an impact on the efficacy of training, and there are therefore many issues to consider when designing and implementing training strategies. These issues are often complex and nuanced, and in order to grasp them fully a significant investment of time and energy is required. However, the requirement to respond quickly to ever-changing technology, a high operational tempo and minimal staffing may preclude many in today's defence forces from seeking out all such resources on their own.This edited collection provides brief, easy-to-understand summaries of the key issues in defence training and simulation, as well as guidance for further reading. It consists of a collection of short essays and frequently asked questions, each of which addresses a fundamental issue in defence training and simulation, and features an up-to-date reference list to enable the reader to undertake further investigation of the issues that are addressed. In essence, this book provides the optimum starting point, or first resource, for readers to come to terms with the important issues associated with defence training and simulation. The contributions are written by leading scholars from military research institutions in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as selected researchers from academic and private sector research institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".