The Concept of ‘Joint’ Intelligence: Its Origins and Enactment, 1900-1942: From London, Toward Wellington
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to begin the conceptualisation of the ‘Joint’ in Intelligence. Through theorising the isolationist tendencies of Intelligence Studies, it will first position itself between foundational and peripheral knowledge bases to enable its claim to originality. From this integrative position, it will identify ‘Joint Intelligence’ as a term that describes a phenomenon in a governmental context. In contrast to existing organisational accounts, it will proceed to address the localised origins of this phenomenon through a specific conceptual lens. By acknowledging the broader system within which Joint Intelligence emerged, this thesis will argue that its immediate origins lie within the extended operationalisation of the Joint concept, denoted by a cascade of Joint institutional forms ending with the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee (JIC) in 1936. In an effort to grasp the origins of the concept itself, this thesis will first engage in the task of conceptual substantiation. In doing so, it will locate the three ‘paternal elements’ (i.e. centralisation, inter-cooperation, and the committee-forum) that comprise the Joint concept within British constitutional administration. Following the partial enactment of the elements in the 1900-18 period, it will then observe the collective enactment of the elements in the Joint institutions of the 1920s, within which the Joint concept will begin to become formalised. Having established the origins and initial operationalisation of the concept in the foundations, its extension to the peripheral realm of intelligence-related knowledge will be undertaken. Taking a broad view of the inter-war intelligence situation, the paternal elements will be employed to traverse the landscape with a view to the functions of intelligence. This will pave the way for the inter-play between the elements, the functions, and the location within which the Joint concept came to be extended to Intelligence in 1935-38 via the JIC. The localised examination will then conclude with an analysis of the 1939-42 period, where the beginnings of the concept’s manifestation within Intelligence were instigated. Finally, the shift to the Commonwealth context will be undertaken. Starting from the premise that Britain’s ‘Joint Internationalisation’ effort occurred after the war, the respective wartime experiences of three Dominions will be drawn upon to illuminate their responses to London’s post-war plans for ‘Joint’ Intelligence and Defence. By placing the presence and absence of the model JICs in a broader context, it will be revealed that 1942 was a significant year for the Joint concept in each Dominion: for Canada, it was the creation of its own JIC; for Australia, the onset of the MacArthur Coalition; for New Zealand, the decision not to reorientate to the Pacific. Through discussing these developments in an integrative fashion, with attention being placed on Wellington, the Joint Intelligence integration and Defence disintegration in the Commonwealth will be cast in a new light.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".