MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W314729654 · doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.a222497

High Maintenance Generals

2007· article· en· W314729654 on OpenAlex
John M. Carland

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

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerCourtesySet (abstract data type)EtiquettePsychologyHistoryLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Maintenance Generals John M. Carland. (bio) Professors who require a great deal of the time, attention, and resources of support staff at universities are characterized as "high maintenance" by those staff members who service them. This useful concept, applied to the military, to general officers in particular, brings to mind a passage from an Anthony Powell novel. In The Military Philosophers, set during the Second World War, Powell's narrator, a serving British officer, ruminates on the nature of such men (for generals were men then and, for the most part, are men today). Out of this rumination Powell's narrator produces a penetrating insight, namely that There could be no doubt, so I was finally forced to decide, that the longer one dealt with them, the more one developed the habit of treating generals like members of the opposite sex; specifically, like ladies no longer young, who therefore deserve extra courtesy and attention; indeed, whose every whim must be given thought. This was particularly applicable if one were out in the open with a general. "Come on, sir, you have the last sandwich," one would say, or "Sit on my mackintosh, sir, the grass is quite wet." Perhaps the cumulative [End Page 1201] effect of such treatment helped to account for the highly strung temperament so many generals developed. They needed constant looking after.1 One cannot say this is true of all generals, for many are low maintenance, easy going, and effective. Yet, enough of the high maintenance ones exist to make Powell's point all too plausible. Of these individuals, of these generals, one also cannot say "you know who you are" because, not much given to introspection, they rarely know, in the sense spelled out above, who they are. However, for good or ill, many of us do indeed know who they are, for we have seen them in action, worked with/for them, and lived to tell the tale. John M. Carland. John M. Carland trained as a British imperial historian at the University of Toronto. When the sun set on the British Empire as an academic subject he reinvented himself as an American military historian, working at the U.S. Army Center of Military History from 1985 to 2002. In 2002 he moved to the History Office, Department of State, where he has completed two documentary histories covering the United States’s disengagement from the Vietnam War during 1972 and 1973. He is also author of The Colonial Office and Nigeria, 1898–1914, and Combat Operations: Stemming the Tide, May 1965–October 1966, the Army’s official history of its first eighteen months of combat in Vietnam. Footnotes 1. Anthony Powell, The Military Philosophers (Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1968), 143. Copyright © 2007 Society for Military History

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · 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