MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226176545 · doi:10.1080/01495933.2022.2039011

The benefits of defense industry privatization: Markets, technology and U.S. military supremacy since World War II

2022· article· en· W4226176545 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

VenueComparative Strategy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefense industryBalance (ability)Defence industryChinaMilitary technologySkepticismCold warPolitical scienceInternational tradePower (physics)Political economyBusinessMarket economyEconomicsEconomic policyLawManagementPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, China and Russia have taken unnoticed steps to partially privatize their defense industries to make them more innovative. If successful, these reforms could seriously alter the international balance of power at the expense of the United States. However, previous academic writings have usually been skeptical of the benefits of privatization in the defense industry. I argue that private markets constitute the best way to instill innovativeness in the defense industry. To demonstrate it, I compare the technological performance of the defense industry of two extreme and opposite cases, namely the United States and the USSR during the Cold War.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.206 · 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