EXPERIENCES OF THE APPLICATION OF WAR GAMES IN THE MILITARY DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
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
The military decision-making process is a set of mental and visual activities of an individual and/or a team that leads to optimal solutions to problems, that is, optimal decisions on the engagement of military forces in a specific situation. The military decision-making process itself is carried out using several strictly determined algorithms depending on the level of military organization at which the decision is made. War games are one of the tools within standard operating procedures, as an algorithm for the military decision-making process. The paper presents the results of research related to the experience of applying war games in the military decision-making process in foreign armed forces (The United States of America, The United Kingdom and Canada) and the Serbian Armed Forces. For the purposes of the research, the content analysis method was primarily used. The results obtained during the implementation of the research represent the basis for further research into this issue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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