MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361758521 · doi:10.33675/amst/2023/1/8

The National Security Advisor in the Role as Coordinator and Counselor: H. R. McMaster and John Bolton in the Trump Administration

2023· article· en· W4361758521 on OpenAlexaff
Mikael Blomdahl

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerikastudien/American Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)National securityPolitical scienceManagementPublic administrationVeterans AffairsPsychologyLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the roles of former National Security Advisors H. R. McMaster and John Bolton in the Trump administration. The article discusses four general roles performed by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs—administrator, coordinator, counselor, agent—and asserts that while McMaster served as a coordinator and Bolton served as a counselor, both failed to achieve a close relationship with the president. Probing the role and performance of President Trump’s second and third APNSA underscores both the significance of two partly influential APNSAs and apparent constraints in relation to what a president with an unconventional management style allowed them to do.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerikastudien/American StudiesSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207