Military Responses and Capabilities in Canada’s Domestic Context Post 9/11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 9/11, the Canadian military has refocused attention and resources on domestic and continental operations, to better prepare for the possibility of a major terrorist attack against Canada. Though virtually ignored by outside academics, the topic resides prominently in new command arrangements resulting from institutional transformation, evolving joint doctrine, and military writings within the Canadian Forces. The defence of Canada from external attack is a primary mission for the Canadian military, including dealing with a terrorist incident or its aftermath. This article provides an overview of available capabilities in the form of military first responders, exercise of command and control in the military context when facing such a situation, the likelihood of assistance from the United States based on existing efforts at coordination and military integration, and some legal aspects associated with using the military domestically. The Canadian military, ten years after the events of 9/11, has reasonable capacity to respond should a credible terrorist threat come. The decision to commit military forces and in what supporting role rests with civilian decision-makers and the government. The Canadian Forces always remains ready to protect the security of Canada and North America whenever called upon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".