Small Militaries and Operational Art: A Strange but Beneficial Pairing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines why and how small militaries have adopted operational art despite not possessing large enough forces to apply the concept in the manner it was originally intended. First, it establishes context by summarizing three large military operational art traditions – the German, Soviet, and American traditions. Second, it examines why small militaries have adopted the concept, positing that it is due to a mixture of interoperability and cultural reasons. While there are many potential ways to define “small militaries,” they are defined here as either comprising less than 100,000 personnel, or as fielding land combat forces of one division or less in size. By either definition, these militaries are smaller in scale than those required to apply operational art as conceptualized within the three large military traditions summarized. Third, three case studies examine how small militaries have adapted and applied the concept: those of Australia; Canada; and the Nordic and Baltic countries. Despite facing different strategic situations, the way these militaries have applied operational art has been very similar. All have taken a functional approach, which de-links operational art from its original emphasis on scale. These militaries have used this modified concept to enable them to operate more effectively alongside their larger allies, America in particular.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.040 | 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".