Bibliographic record
Abstract
<JATS1:p>Examining open access civilian and military space policy, strategy, and doctrine documents, this book highlights emerging trends and developments in military space strategy.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>Bert Chapman collects public documents from Australia, Canada, the European Union, NATO, the United States, and the United Kingdom from 2017 onward to illustrate space’s critical importance to national and international security and to multiple areas of civilian economic and personal use including climate change, food security, personal and global communications, and the potential for expanded space exploration.</JATS1:p> <JATS1:p>In light of recent revelations that Russia may be capable and desirous of exploding nuclear weapons in space to damage civilian and military space-based infrastructures of the U.S. and other countries and China’s increasing space assertiveness and capabilities, it is more important than ever that civilian readers have the access and background knowledge necessary to parse publicly available documents relating to space strategy so that they may effectively participate in the legislative and regulatory policymaking processes of their governments.</JATS1:p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".