Defense, Development, and Diplomacy (3D): Canadian and U.S. Military Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
" War has changed. New organizing principles require a new paradigm that facilitates change from a singular military approach to a multidimensional, multi-organizational, and multilateral/multinational whole-of-government and whole-of-alliance/coalition approach to deal more effectively with the contemporary global security reality. " Based on its 3-D (Defense, Development, and Diplomacy) approach, Canada has made great strides in developing a new external conflict and internal catastrophe/disaster paradigm in which traditional military and police organizations continue to play major roles, but are closely coordinated with all the other instruments of power under the control of the civil authority. " The 3-D concept is rapidly growing into a broader and more effective strategic whole-of-government and grand-strategy whole-of-alliance paradigm. " Participants recommended that these models be utilized as the essential organizing principles to make carefully-staffed supplementary recommendations to the appropriate authority to establish a comprehensive North American process for active intergovernmental and multilateral policy coordination and cooperation. " In these terms, they further recommended that governments and their security-related institutions continue to develop appropriate organizational mechanisms that will achieve an effective unity of effort. The intent is to ensure that the application of the various civil-military instruments of power directly contributes to a viable and mutually agreed political end-state. Generating a more complete unity of effort will require conceptual and organizational contributions at the international, as well as the national level.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".