MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809942455 · doi:10.21810/jicw.v1i1.459

Applying the Revolution in Military Affairs to Intelligence

2018· article· en· W2809942455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Kurliak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and Warfare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary intelligenceRevolution in Military AffairsProcess (computing)Information revolutionIntelligence cycleIntelligence analysisQuality (philosophy)Political scienceEngineeringMilitary scienceComputer scienceLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper identifies how the concept of the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ can be applied to the intelligence process to address the overabundance of information produced by contemporary technologies. Three tenets from the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ are examined as possible remedies for failings in the intelligence process. Drawing on previous intelligence failures, the case is made that applying the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ will improve the intelligence process and allow for agencies to stay on top of the large quantity of information they handle. The finding is that by incorporating these tenets, intelligence services can improve the quality of intelligence that they produce.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.033
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Intelligence Conflict and WarfareSame topicIntelligence, Security, War StrategyFrench-language works237,207