MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904615702 · doi:10.1177/0968344518776494

The Eighth Army at the Gothic Line, August–September 1944: A Study in Staff Compatibility and Coalition Command

2018· article· en· W2904615702 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWar in History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationCommonwealthHistoryManagementEngineeringOperations researchOperations managementPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article takes a reverse-engineering approach to gain some insight as to how the armies of the British Commonwealth became so compatible – and, therefore, easy for commanders to use. It begins with an examination of operations conducted by the British Eighth Army in the late summer of 1944 to examine how common staff procedures and methods allowed a limited commander like Lieutenant-General Sir Oliver Leese to assemble his multinational forces and break the much-vaunted Gothic Line. It then looks at how staff uniformity had been developed over months, years, and, in some cases, decades.

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 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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.259 · 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