MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488562079

Military Responses and Capabilities in Canada’s Domestic Context Post 9/11

2011· article· en· W1488562079 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Chris Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommitTerrorismContext (archaeology)Military threatPolitical scienceMilitary doctrineGovernment (linguistics)National securityMilitary scienceMilitary operationLawRevolution in Military AffairsMilitary strategyMilitary policyDoctrineInternal securityMilitary theoryBusinessPoliticsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207