Defense Engagement since 1900: Global Lessons in Soft Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This is a work of applied military history-where military history is analyzed in order to inform current issues, particularly regarding international security. Defense engagement uses military capabilities to exert what's known as "soft power" (influence) as opposed to "hard power" (military force). As described by Kennedy in his introduction, defense engagement "is a question of looking at the ability of the state's military to move away from thinking of its role as the applicator of force and instead thinking of itself as an applicator of power. . . . [T]he purpose of defense engagement is to attempt to tackle the causes of designated security threats and not simply manage their consequences." In recognition of the importance of defense engagement-and with an appreciation of the lack of academic literature addressing defense engagement through historical analysis-this collection offers a number of case studies that explore various dimensions of defense engagement, primarily in the UK, but also including the US, Canada, and Japan. I've included the table of contents under "Additional Comments" below so you can see what case studies are included."--
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".