Presumptive Intimacies and the Politics of Touch: “Strategic Culture” in Simulations of War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p dir="ltr">In 2004, in order to engage in force-on-force combat against insurgents – a move that required a discursive shift away from our country’s nationalizing tenets of peacekeeping to peace enforcement¹ – the Canadian Armed Forces established the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre (CMTC). CMTC is a $500 million, full-immersion war games facility at Canadian Forces Base Wainright in rural eastern Alberta, where soldiers engage in ten-day training intensives in an environment that replicates the conditions of asymmetrical warfare² in Afghanistan. Role-players drawn largely from the Afghan diaspora in Edmonton create a “pattern of life” in mock Afghan villages, training soldiers’ powers of observation as they try to build an “intelligence picture”³ of possible insurgent activity in each village. Chief military personnel collaborate with former film industry professionals in a “story-boarding” of scenarios to inoculate soldiers against stress, while increasing their cultural intelligence through encounters with Afghans in role. This chapter examines the ways in which the military’s instrumentalist use of “strategic culture” – the development of a more robust cultural intelligence of local populations as a “force multiplier” – structures the scenarios that unfold in these immersive simulations.⁴ It focuses its attention on scenarios designed to prepare soldiers for engagements that turn on a seemingly irreconcilable paradox of punitive, yet culturally sensitive, militarism and asks how the immersive simulation, as a rehearsal for the future, habituates and potentially de-habituates structures of cultural, racial, and political difference.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".