MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377023815 · doi:10.1080/10242694.2023.2209772

On Distinguishing Defence Inputs in an Alliance – The Case of NORAD

2023· article· en· W4377023815 on OpenAlex
Ugurhan G. Berkok, Oana Secrieru, K Lee

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

VenueDefence and Peace Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceProduction (economics)Joint (building)Computer securityDefence industryInternational tradeOperations researchEconomicsBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceAeronauticsPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our model extends the joint-products models to allow for two types of defence inputs used to produce both an alliance-wide public defence output and a country-specific private output. Distinguishing different defence inputs is particularly appropriate in the case of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), as the alliance-wide defence output is produced with two inputs – military technology in the form of sensors and radars and land. These two inputs are complements in the production of the alliance-wide public output. At the same time, the military technology has country-specific private benefits as this can be used by the civilian economy. Our analysis shows that distinguishing between defence inputs may change the predictions of the joint-products model. We derive conditions under which an ally responds to an increase in the defence input by other allies by increasing or decreasing its own contribution of both or only one of the defence inputs.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.207 · 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