Bibliographic record
Abstract
Military transformation can be understood as comprising three overlapping and sometimes competing layers—the conventional-force dominated revolution in military affairs, a more recent irregular warfare emphasis, and a wider dimension including homeland defense, space and nuclear policy. The Western world is currently focusing its attention on transformation's middle layer, while China and Russia are focusing on the RMA and transformation's wider aspects. This dynamic indicates the United States and its allies should continue to prepare for the full range of conflicts. This book establishes the meaning of military transformation, assesses the manner in which certain countries are transforming their military forces, discusses the relevancy of transformation efforts to modern conflict and, in drawing out the key areas of emphasis on the part of various countries, provides a window on the future global security environment. It is divided into seven chapters, plus a conclusion. The first chapter focuses on the meaning of military transformation, establishing a framework through which national militaries can be examined. This comprises transformation's revolution in military affairs components, its newer special operations forces, counterinsurgency, and stabilization and reconstruction aspects, and its wider homeland defense, space and deterrence dimensions. The book devotes two chapters to the United States and one each to China, Russia, and NATO. It also has a chapter that looks individually at each of Australia, Britain, Canada, France and Germany. An assessment of the relevancy of force transformation to modern warfare is integrated into the discussion of what transformation means, how the United States is responding, and the concluding chapter. The book contains a biographical sketch of Andrew Marshall, Andrew Krepinevich, William Owens, Arthur Cebrowski, Donald Rumsfeld, and Thomas Barnett, all of whom have been involved in some aspect of military transformation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".