Doctrine, Strategy and Military Culture: Military-Strategic Doctrine Development in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, 1987-2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1987 and 2007, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand armed forces underwent a significant doctrinal renaissance. The hallmark of this renaissance was the production for the first time of military-strategic doctrine manuals. Constituting officially sanctioned, formalized and written expressions of institutionally accepted ideas about what armed forces do and how they do it, these manuals established fundamental principles to guide the application of military force in the pursuit of national strategic objectives. This study analyses the emergence and subsequent evolution of military-strategic doctrine in Australia, Canada and New Zealand during the 20-year period beginning with the 1987 release in all three countries of Defence White Papers.\nIn addition to discussing the history of military-strategic doctrine development in the three armed forces, this study examines the broader significance of the doctrine itself. Informed by a comprehensive background discussion that focuses primarily on Australian, Canadian and New Zealand strategic policy developments and operational undertakings during this 20-year period, the examination of the broader significance of military-strategic doctrine manuals pays particular attention to the factors that influenced doctrine development and the intended effects of the doctrine manuals of the armed forces.\nBased on this examination, this study includes models developed to explain how army, navy, air force and joint doctrine development was shaped by and in turn shaped the broader political context in which the armed forces under study existed. Furthermore, it reveals several nuances about the nature, scope, role and utility of military-strategic doctrine. Finally, it establishes that the strongest connection between the many doctrine manuals is that they were all used pragmatically by the armed forces studied as a mechanism for attempting to shape the environment in which they each existed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".