Mobility in the Arctic: applying lessons from the past to the new operational environment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arctic operational environment has and continues to present challenges to mobility at the tactical and operational level. Doctrine and training solutions require perspectives from the past as well as an understanding of the future developments to the operational environment. Three case studies were analyzed to inform doctrinal and training recommendations – the Battle of Suomussalmi (7 December 1939-8 January 1940), the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation (7-29 October 1944), and post-World War II Canadian exercises (1945-1955). The outcomes of this analysis when held against future Arctic factors of temperature, permafrost, precipitation, infrastructure, vegetation, and the Russian threat indicate that US doctrine provides a sufficient base to inform tactical mobility. Operational doctrine, however, needs to be updated to fully prepare commanders and staff for the mobility challenges awaiting an Arctic Brigade. Continuing multi-national training exercises across the Arctic, developing a permanent joint multinational training center, and standardizing Arctic training will further prepare ground forces for the mobility challenges of the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".