MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W8479319 · doi:10.1002/micr.1920140312

Collaboration between the Canadian Forces and the Public in Operations

2011· article· en· W8479319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael H. Thomson, Barbara Adams, Courtney D. Hall, Andrea Brown, Craig Flear

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrosurgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfghanPublic relationsNegotiationPolitical sciencePower (physics)Work (physics)Prejudice (legal term)Identity (music)SociologyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : In current operations, the Canadian Forces (CF) are expected to work more closely than in the past with a number of diverse civilian organizations, including Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), International Organizations (IOs), Other Governmental Departments (OGDs), local populations, and the media. However, the CF's history of working with NGOs, for example, has been limited and may pose challenges to collaboration. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to further understand the core issues that help or hinder civil-military collaboration involving the CF, NGOs, IOs, Afghan nationals, and the media; and (2) to elicit from subject matter experts (SMEs) recommendations for potential training and education that may assist in making collaboration in theatre more effective for the diverse, multiple parties involved. SMEs representing diverse organizations and entities, both military (CF) and civilian (NGOs, IOs, Afghan nationals, the media), were consulted to elicit first-hand accounts of collaboration efforts in the Afghanistan theatre of operations. Data were collected from Sep 27, 2010 to Jan 7, 2011 using a semi-structured protocol that guided discussions on five core themes: negotiation, power, identity, stereotypes/prejudice, and trust. Results indicate that the CF did not effectively acknowledge their counterparts' expertise and experience, and that they should refrain from taking charge and telling others how to do their jobs. Civilian participants said that the CF engaged in open dialogue, and that CF leaders were good at engaging, but that they could engage more with civilians and civil organizations given the challenges faced by civilians in navigating the military system. Military and civilian participants said that one strategy to facilitate collaboration was to build positive relationships. Civilian SMEs thought that the military sometimes overstepped its jurisdiction and that roles and responsibilities needed to be clearly established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrosurgerySame topicMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207