Pearl Harbor and American Intelligence Culture: Cultural Symbols in American Intelligence Discourse Communities, Meta-Theoretical Lenses and Multi-Perspective Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ideas of the world persist long beyond the contexts that gave rise to them. In intelligence, as in strategic culture, these persisting ideas form a culture which shapes the intelligence system. Persisting ideas can come to form part of a national culture that ultimately shapes the actors, interests, and decision-making of intelligence stakeholders. This thesis illuminates how specific American cultural symbols influence and reflect U.S. intelligence ideas, discourses, policies, and practices, thereby contributing to a distinctly "U.S. intelligence culture." As a result, this dissertation demonstrates that national cultural symbols are not epiphenomenal: These symbols tangibly influence the thought and action of diverse audiences both within and outside the formal U.S. intelligence community. Through an analysis of national and institutional definitions, norms, narratives, and warrants, the contours of a uniquely American intelligence culture emerge. A test case of how Pearl Harbor functions as a powerful cultural symbol among intelligence discourse communities illustrates national culture's influence vis--vis policy decisions, intelligence reform, institutional openness, and intelligence education. Ultimately, this dissertation's meta-theoretical lens and multi-perspective approach productively bring together conceptual resources from the fields of Intelligence Studies, Strategic Studies, and International Relations contributing to the development of "intelligence culture" as a theoretically sound and useful approach to studying intelligence-related phenomena.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".