Introduction: Revolution in Military Epistemology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue offers a platform for 15 leading military practitioners (commanders, planners, developers and instructors on duty or retired) from five countries to share their experiences with design thinking and other reflexive approaches in the classroom, in headquarters and/or on battlefields. These reflexive approaches are gaining momentum and are consolidating as a distinct paradigm in military and strategic practices around the world. The articles included herein present the visions of some of the leading practitioners dictating the terms and promoting this epistemological transition in their national institutions and, in some cases, transnationally. This introduction divides contributors into four task forces based on key issues they engage: efficacy criteria including ethics, education, and organizational politics. The conclusion of this special issue lays the ground for a research program to further learn from and inform reflexive military practices by developing three directions following the logics of translation, narration and power relations.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it