MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392683375 · doi:10.1080/01495933.2024.2317254

Preparing for a two-front conflict: The role of the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force

2024· article· en· W4392683375 on OpenAlex

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

VenueComparative Strategy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsCanadian Federation of University Women
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyDoctrineModernization theoryChinaPaceFront (military)Political scienceDenialMilitary doctrineLawAeronauticsEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that while India is preparing for the contingency of a two-front war against China and Pakistan, its procurement and arms production policies make it problematic for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and Indian Navy (IN) to meet these challenges. IAF doctrine is not aligned to its current capabilities and is, therefore, largely speculative. Further, due to budgetary shortfalls in its modernization efforts, the IAF will find it difficult to fulfill its stated doctrinal role against China or Pakistan. On the other hand, the Indian Navy’s doctrine is better aligned with its objectives and capabilities. The IN can carry out its doctrine of sea control against the Pakistani Navy, but will have to adopt a sea denial posture against China because of the rapid growth of the PLA Navy’s force and capabilities. Given their slow pace of modernization, neither service will be able to decisively counter the Chinese military.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.304 · 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