MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4367305220 · doi:10.1093/psquar/qqad013

Intelligence Analysis and Policy Making: The Canadian Experience <i>by Thomas Juneau and Stephanie Carvin</i>

2023· article· en· W4367305220 sur OpenAlex
Patrick Walsh

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePolitical Science Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntelligence analysisTheme (computing)Perspective (graphical)Political scienceCorporate governanceIntelligence cycleSociologyPublic relationsPublic administrationMilitary intelligenceManagementLawComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Thomas Juneau and Stephanie Carvin have produced an excellent and unique contribution to the intelligence studies field. Compared with research books on aspects of the U.S. intelligence community and perhaps to some extent Australia's intelligence community, works on Canada are still rare, and empirical studies such as this even rarer. The central theme is the role of intelligence analysis in policy-making within Canada from a contemporary institutional rather than “how to” perspective. The methodological approach draws on sixty-eight interviews with intelligence and policy-maker staff at all levels both current and former, which, along with the detailed analysis of secondary sources, provides an impressive foundation to explore how intelligence analysis has been used—or as they authors argue not used sufficiently by policy-makers in Ottawa. The semistructured interview approach used here is one I have used several times in my own research on intelligence governance and organizational reform across the “Five Eyes” intelligence communities over the last decade (see for example, Intelligence and Intelligence Analysis). Armed with a coherent methodological approach, the book thematically explores via five chapters the many structural/cultural barriers and even what they describe as sudden threats (or “electro-shock”) events that sometimes have resulted in improved connection between Canada's intelligence enterprise and the policy-makers it serves. All five chapters provide a coherent analysis of relevant themes, though I think chapter five (“Recommendations and the Way Ahead)” is the richest in terms of how these applied researchers offer prescriptions to the many problems of why intelligence analysis and products continue to be unseen as vital to policy deliberations in many parts of the government of Canada. The authors offer several useful recommendations for improving the overall governance and structure under which intelligence analysis occurs within agencies and across the intelligence community. For example, the focus on strengthening the analytical capabilities, leadership, and coordination of the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat (IAS) in a similar vein to what occurred in Australia (2018) when the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) was established could be a critical way forward for helping improve intelligence analysis excellence and influence with policy-makers. But as my own research suggests, the ONI after four years is still a work in progress on a range of the intelligence leadership and coordination functions it has responsibility for. Though as the authors rightly point out, Canadian intelligence reformers need to learn the good and bad lessons from Australia and be mindful of not “australiadizing” Canberra's solutions to Ottawa's problems (176). Other useful though potentially equally costly suggestions for improving intelligence analysis influence in the policy context included the long-debated consideration of Canada creating its own foreign (HUMINT) intelligence agency, and in the interim, CSIS taking up a greater role in foreign intelligence collection. There are also many other good ideas, but as the authors say, intelligence has not been a priority for policy-makers and any reforms have only occurred in “fits and starts” (172). But Canada's immediate and global security environment is now much less benign, and what is likely needed is a comprehensive independent review of the intelligence community—similar to the regular five yearly ones in Australia that take stock of the ever-changing security environment and how holistically meaningful reforms can take place. The authors show us in detail what recommendations in the area of intelligence analysis an independent reviewer would find useful. An excellent and timely contribution.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,588
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,008
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,369
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle