Defense : redefining United States needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The end of the Cold War was a watershed moment for American defense policy. During the years of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the arms buildup of the Reagan Administration, U.S. defense spending soared, reaching almost 12% of GDP at its peak. Following the decline of the Soviet nuclear threat, however, the United States slashed defense spending in the face of enormous budget deficits and uncertain strategic priorities. Under the Clinton Administration, defense spending was projected to represent just 3% of GDP by 1998, a mere quarter of what it had once been. As American policymakers sought to define the United States' newfound role as the world's sole superpower, questions arose about the defense capabilities of America's downsized military. Will the U.S. be able to protect its interests and honor its international commitments despite a radical decrease in military spending, and what security threats remain for the U.S. to confront? In this episode, Dr. Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Kim Holmes of the Heritage Foundation join host Peter Krogh to discuss changing American defense priorities in the midst of a changing world order.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".