“Train the World”: Examining the Logics of US Foreign Military Training
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracts Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it