MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W857066752

From Above: War, Violence, and Verticality

2014· article· en· W857066752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles J. Dunlap

Bibliographic record

VenueThe US Army War College Quarterly Parameters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorializationPassionsMistakePublishingMedia studiesSociologyNarrativeLawPolitical scienceLiteratureArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Above: War, Violence, and Verticality Edited by Peter Adey, Mark Whitehead, and Alison J. Williams London, England, UK: Hurst Publishing, 2014 376 pages $30.52 (paper) [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] For intellectual plebeians like your reviewer, any book with a made-for-academia word like in its tide might be a bit off-putting. And, indeed, much or most of Above is written for--and by academics. The majority of the predominantly British contributors are professors of geography or the liberal arts. They are not specialists in military or strategic matters. It would be a mistake, however, for military professionals to dismiss this volume because important chunks of it do, in fact, build the reader's intellectual database in a positive and insightful way. Moreover, it allows those who do have expertise in related military or strategic matters the opportunity to see how other thoughtful thinkers view their craft. Verticality, it seems, is professor-speak to describe the aerial view. According to the editors, this perspective has brought about seismic shifts for life on the ground. They add that the book makes significant moves to understand the view from above within the pathos and passions of the societies that have produced and consume[d] it, perspective that art, literature and other forms of expression have been more used to exploring. Perhaps so, but the approach the editors took presents real challenges to creating a coherent narrative as there are, in addition to the triumvirate of editors, thirteen different contributors, each of whom penned separate chapters. Getting a baker's dozen of academics to fit into any sort of logical framework is no small task. In their effort to do so, the editors divided the writings into three sections, respectively entitled Science, Militarism and Distance; Aesthetics, Distortion and the View from Below; and From the Close to the Remote. Along with an energetic--and editorially heroic--organizational effort in the introduction, they sought to provide a context for chapters diverse not just in subject matter, but in style--and verbosity--as well. The results were mixed, and will likely mean readers will skim or skip some chapters. For sure, a couple may be obtuse to all but the most dedicated specialist. Others--such as one laboriously entitled Project Transparent Earth and the Autoscopy of Aerial Targeting: The Visual Geopolitics of the Underground--contain some nuggets but only if one perseveres long enough to discover them. Still, there are, however, a few gems. The chapter on balloons is fascinating, tracing not just the technical development, but also with the psychological impact the then never-before-experienced aerial perspectives had. The author highlights individuals who grasped the military potential of verticality along with the contribution that ballooning made to militarized aeromobility. In his chapter, Line of Decent, Canadian Professor Derek Gregory grapples not so much with verticality (though he sprinkles such terms as political technology of vision and visuality), but with the whole notion of aerial attack and the risk to civilians by surveying such operations from World War II bombings through drone operations in contemporary conflicts. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe US Army War College Quarterly ParametersSame topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207