Kommando og kontroll i multifunksjonelle FN operasjoner: behov for mindre kontroll og mer kommando?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the characteristics of the complex multifunctional peace operations of today, and further examines the challenges regarding command and control (C2) caused by increased complexity and the enhanced civil-military cooperation experienced in these operations. The scope of the paper is to use the understanding of these characteristics to discover and to describe some possible initiatives that may enhance the performance of C2 in future peace operations. The central supporting idea is that there is a need for a shift in focus of what C2 is (structure) to why C2 (function). The main focus of why C2 is that C2 shall achieve effects with the operations. To better achieve this aim, I promote a new understanding of C2, given by the Canadian researchers McCann and Pigeau; C2; the establishment of common intent to achieve coordinated action. Further to enhance and guide the performance of C2, I promote to replace the well known and applied OODA-loop and start to apply the Dynamic-OODA-loop (DOODA) developed by the Swedish Professor Bernt Brehmer. The functional and supporting ideas is that one cannot control complex adaptive systems, hence the function of command is more essential than the function of control. And in order to achieve a common intent, it is important to note the importance of internalising the individual implicit intent. Explicit intent (as stated by the Commander, and in written orders) is only the tip of the iceberg related to the common intent. Complex adaptive systems can only be influenced and bounded. I also promote that agility – both mental and physical – will be one of the most important functions of the C2 system in the organisation that operate in the complex and rapidly changing environment of multifunctional peace operations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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; 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".