Standard Electronic Attack Clearance Request for Ranges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic Attack (EA), formerly known as Electronic Countermeasures (ECM), includes both electronic jamming and chaff dispensing operations. EA is a subdivision of Electronic Warfare, which also consists of Electronic Protection (EP) and Electronic Warfare Support (ES). EA in the United States is an important element of DOD weapons systems testing and military training. The purpose of this document is to furnish guidance on the procedures for obtaining EA clearance for operations on U.S. ranges and within adjoining areas of restricted military air space. EA operations often require the sharing of bands used or controlled by other agencies. Because of the disruptive nature of EA and the serious consequences of uncontrolled EA on safety-of-life systems such as air and sea navigation and air-traffic control, special coordination requirements have been instituted for obtaining EA authorization. Agencies of major concern are the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which has jurisdiction over commercial and private spectrum operations, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates flight safety. EA may be performed only under the condition that it not cause harmful interference to other authorized users of the spectrum, especially to safety-of-life systems such as air-traffic control and air/sea radio-navigation systems. Specific procedures for coordinating and obtaining authorization for Electronic Attack have been developed in formal agreements between Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies and are documented and disseminated via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual CJCSM 32l2.02A, dated 11 Mar 02, titled Performing Electronic Attack in the US. and Canada for Tests, Training and Exercises. A memo outline and instructions for requesting electronic attack clearance, on and around U.S ranges, are included in Appendix B.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".