Bibliographic record
Abstract
◾Army - Gender Integration Study2\n◾Army - MEDCOM Injury and Attrition Rates Working Group\n◾Army - MEDCOM USARIEM Task Assessment\n◾Army - Ranger Assessment Study Executive Report\n◾OUSDPR - Defining and Establishing Gender-Neutral Standards for Closed Occupations\n◾SOCOM - Appendices - Considerations for Integrating Women into Closed Occupations in the US Special Operations Forces\n◾SOCOM - Considerations for Integrating Women into Closed Occupations in the US Special Operations Forces\n◾SOCOM - JSOU Study on Special Operations Forces Mixed-Gender Elite Team\n◾SOCOM - University of Kansas - Project Diane\n◾USAF - Development and Validation of Physical Performance Tests2\n◾USAF - Physical Fitness Tests and Standards for Battlefield Airmen Study\n◾USAF - Recommended ASVAB Standards for Battlefield Airman Specialties\n◾USAF - Validation Review and Documentation for CRO STO CCT and SOWT Assessment Programs\n◾USMC - A Quick-Look Analysis of the GCEITF Baseline Climate Survey\n◾USMC - An Analysis of Female Representation and Marines Performance in Aviation and Logistics Occupations-Redacted\n◾USMC - An Analysis of Marine Corps Female Recruit Training Attrition\n◾USMC -Assessing How DEP Fitness is Related to Attrition_ Injuries_ and Physical Fitness_Redacted\n◾USMC - Australia Visit_ After Action Report2\n◾USMC - Canada Visit_ After Action Report2\n◾USMC - Center for Strategic and International Studies Red Team analysis of Marine Corps research and analysis on gender integration\n◾USMC - CNA Implementing Force Integration Issues and Challenges-red\n◾USMC - Line of Effort 1 Thematic Research EUA Final Report2\n◾USMC - Line Of Effort 2 Research Assessment and Findings Final Report:\n◾USMC - Line Of Effort 2 Research Assessment and Findings Final Report -Part 1\n◾USMC - Line Of Effort 2 Research Assessment and Findings Final Report - Part 2\n◾USMC - Line Of Effort 2 Research Assessment and Findings Final Report - Part 3\n◾USMC - Line Of Effort 3 GCEITF Experimental Assessment Report2\n◾USMC - Michigan State University Gender Diversity in Male Dominated Teams The impact of Compositional Cinfiguration Over Time\n◾USMC - MilMed Article-Changes in Combat Task Performance under Increasing Loads in Active Duty Marines\n◾USMC - NHRC Analysis in Support of the Women in Service Restrictions Review Study\n◾USMC - NUBHNAS GCEITF Behavioral Needs Assessment Survey Report\n◾USMC - RAND Implications of Integrating Women Into the Marine Corps Infantry Report2\n◾USMC - Relationship between Initial Strength Test (IST) and Attrition_ Injury_ and Physical Performance\n◾USMC - Smart Adaptations for the Gender-Integrated Marine Corps Final Report (July 2015)-redacted\n◾USMC - The Experience of Female Combat Engineers and EOD-Study Results-Redacted\n◾USMC - United Kingdom and Israel Visit_ After Action Report2\n◾USMC - University of Pittsburgh Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force Research Final Report 15 Aug\n◾Women In Service Review Selective Service Legal Analysis
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.184 | 0.059 |
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".