MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409210156 · doi:10.1080/10242694.2025.2477110

Modest and balanced: the US defense budget buildup during the first Trump administration, 2017–2020

2025· article· en· W4409210156 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Travis Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueDefence and Peace Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. ArmyOffice of the Secretary of DefenseCenters for Disease Control and PreventionEgg Farmers of CanadaU.S. Department of TransportationU.S. Department of StateCancerCare Manitoba FoundationU.S. Department of DefenseU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Department of CommerceU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)Public administrationReagan administrationPolitical scienceBusinessAeronauticsEngineeringLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modesty and balance are not the first words that come to mind about President Donald Trump, but they do accurately describe the defense budget buildup that occurred during his first administration from 2017 to 2020. Measured against historical outcomes, the budget buildup facilitated modestly sized and institutionally balanced increases in readiness, force structure, and weapons system procurement. Contrary to contemporaneous claims, the budget buildup did not oversee a colossal rebuilding of the US military, did not disproportionally benefit readiness over other outputs, and did not ignore the Army in favor of the Air Force and Navy. These findings should ground expectations about what may occur in Trump’s second administration and remind scholars that the defense policy status quo is highly stable and resistant to change

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefence and Peace EconomicsSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207