Effects-Based Approaches to Operations: Canadian Perspectives
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
There are currently three major theoretical approaches that dominate analyses and descriptions of military operations. They are Operational Art, Network Centric Warfare (NCW) (or Network Enabled Operations (NEOps) in the Canadian context), and Effects Based Operations (EBO). The concept of EBO is currently having a significant influence on Operational Art and NCW, as well as how operations are conceptualized in the new security environment. The EBO concept is emerging through discussions and papers within Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) jointly with other stakeholders in the Department of National Defence (DND); however, there are many ways of describing EBO in the literature and in practice. In order to fully understand the nature of EBO today and how it might evolve in the future, it is essential to understand the theoretical and historical origins of this subject, as well as how EBO is conceptualized and practiced by the CF. Since there has been no comprehensive examination of these concepts in a Canadian context, the Command Effectiveness and Behaviour Section at DRDC Toronto co-sponsored with the Canadian Forces Aerospace Warfare Centre (CFAWC) a two-day workshop to identify the issues related to EBO and to begin to establish the agenda for better understanding EBO. This report is the product of that workshop and it includes not only the main conclusions of the workshop, but also essays on EBO by workshop participants, and others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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