MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999098253

Canadian Army command culture in World War II: a study of operational effectiveness in the European Theater.

2019· other· en· W6999098253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIke Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library (US Army Combined Arms Center) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperational level of warOperational effectivenessWorld War IIMilitary scienceMilitary operations other than warMilitary sociologyMilitary doctrinePeacetimeMilitary tacticsMilitary strategyDoctrine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Army entered World War II with approximately 4,000 regular and 34,000 reservist military personnel, including only forty-five British staff college graduates. By 1945, it had grown to a total force of 730,625 members with 288,000 serving in Europe. 1st Canadian Army fought as a formation under 21st Army Group (AG) from 1944 to the end of the war in the European theater. The following monograph provides insights into the implications of the command culture of the World War II Canadian Army on its operational effectiveness in the European theater. It aims to enable awareness of the continuities, potential cognitive dissonance, and opportunities when implementing doctrine for direct engagement in large-scale combat operations. Using the theory of Edgar H. Schein and its adaptation by Eitan Shamir to the military domain, the author defines command culture as the product of the interrelated cultural elements categorized under basic assumptions, espoused values, and artifacts that influence the activities of leadership, management, and decision making in a military organization. Using a military history case study methodology, he demonstrates its implication on operational effectiveness in the 1944 European theater of operations during the Falaise pocket and the Scheldt campaigns through the lens of the elements of operational art. He asserts that the command culture of the Canadian Army in World War II reflected the ambivalent attitude of the government and population towards war and the military profession, the primacy of British military influence, and the organizational structure and roles assigned within the institution. On the battlefield, it hindered the ability of second echelon forces to create cognitive disruption but enabled interoperability within 21st AG. It did not encourage the use of large mechanized operational maneuvers to exploit enemy weaknesses and maintain the initiative but made great use of superior artillery and air support during deliberate operations. By evolving, it balanced the risk to troops with the limited replacements available and the political implications of conscription. He concludes that the current principles of war, adopted in 1946, are a synthesis of Canada's experience in World War II. The modern emphasis on the maneuverist approach creates potential dissonance when looking at mechanized warfare. The doctrine now clearly requires to create cognitive disruption of the enemy in depth. Being cognizant of the World War II Canadian Army command culture can help prepare for the next conflict. As theorist John Boyd argued, cultural tradition, heritage, and previous experience have a notable impact on the orientation phase of the decision-action cycle. There resides the opportunity of learning from our past tendencies to create new ways to answer doctrinal challenges. As seen in World War II, the command culture did not prevent innovation and evolution on the battlefield, but peacetime preparations shaped the force and were critical to operational effectiveness. Awareness of the command culture through professional military education remains vital today in shaping the future Canadian Army.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0220.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIke Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library (US Army Combined Arms Center)French-language works237,207