MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500714146 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174541.008

Technical Collection in the Post–September 11 World

2009· book-chapter· en· W2500714146 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentQuarter (Canadian coin)Overhead (engineering)EngineeringData collectionOperations researchTelecommunicationsPolitical sciencePsychologyHistoryOperations managementSociologySocial scienceElectrical engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quarter-century ago, Wilhelm Agrell reflected on the impact of technical collection – which initially consisted of overhead photographic reconnaissance and communications intelligence (COMINT) – on national intelligence. On the positive side, it made it possible for the most advanced countries to get “an almost complete picture of the strength, deployment, and activity of foreign military forces.” The negative, for Agrell, was an overemphasis on what could be counted. Intelligence became “concentrated on evaluation and comparison of military strength based exclusively on numerical factors.”

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it