MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790734993

Organizational change and Canada's air force

2001· article· en· W2790734993 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dirk Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Air Force
KeywordsOrganizational changeBusinessPolitical sciencePublic relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis identifies the most influential factors in organizational change through an examination of the Canadian Air Force. The significant factors influencing the decision to change revolve around the market, as well as other factors that are germane to the organization's external environment. However, as an organization matures, another important factor stemming from within gains increasing influence, that of the organization's internal culture. During the formative years of Canada's air force, it was characterized by civilian roles as a result of the absence of an external military threat, the lack of funding, and the organization's primary goal of survival. This function lasted until 1936 when a significant change in the external environment led to a shift to military functions. During World War II, the emphasis was on the adoption of strategic bombing role without debate. In many ways, it foreshadows the impact of the external environment of the post-war period. Specifically, the adoption of this role resulted from the combination of domestic external forces and the imprint of the Royal Air Force (RAF). In the post-war period, Canada's commitments to NATO and NORAD in response to the evolving Soviet threat was significantly filtered through the RCAF's close relationship with the USAF. At the same time, the RCAF's culture had to deal with Paul Hellyer's reorganization. Demonstrating the staying power of its culture, the air force was reborn with the re-establishment of an independent command in 1975. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.139
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207