MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417135160 · doi:10.1080/01495933.2025.2580956

Two decades of India’s Cold Start Doctrine

2025· article· en· W4417135160 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Strategy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineCold warBattleGovernment (linguistics)OperationalizationMilitary doctrineMeaning (existential)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overt nuclearization of South Asia has questioned the space for the use of force between India and Pakistan. However, India has introduced the contentious and yet ambiguous Cold Start Doctrine (CSD), designed to launch a limited war against Pakistan under the nuclear umbrella. This article examines the doctrine’s meaning and its core operational tool of Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs). It analyses the critical initiatives taken by the Indian government to overcome the main impediments that have hindered the operationalization of the CSD over the past two decades. These include: reorganizing the Indian Army Corps, improving rail and road infrastructure in border regions, enhancing the nighttime combat capabilities of mechanized units, increasing shoot-and-scoot strike capabilities, and strengthening real-time surveillance and communication systems. It finally argues that the CSD is likely to remain a fixture of the Indian military planning; however, its execution against Pakistan carries significant operational and strategic risks for regional peace and stability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.230 · 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