MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Air Corps Tactical School and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies

2020· book-chapter· en· W3093756586 on OpenAlex
Harold R. Winton

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Press of Kentucky eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintJoint (building)CurriculumEngineeringWorld War IIPolitical scienceManagementAeronauticsMedical educationPedagogySociologyMedicineCivil engineeringMechanical engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the evolution of Canadian staff colleges from their inception during the Second World War to their integration into the Canadian Forces College (CFC) in 1966. In their first years, the Canadian services largely based their own staff college curricula on their British counterparts. The Canadian Army Staff College (CASC) and the RCAF Staff College differed, however in the focus of their content. While the CASC emphasized the tactical level, the RCAF Staff College focused on the nature of air power during the Second World War stressed joint and combined operations at an operational and strategic tier, more in keeping with the model of the USAF Air University. This broader higher-level approach meant that ultimately the RCAF Staff College would serve as blueprint of the joint programme of the CFC.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.179 · 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