RELUCTANT WARRIOR, ENTHUSIASTIC PEACEKEEPER: DOMESTIC LEGAL REGULATION OF CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN ARMED CONFLICTS*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
War is, by necessity, a savage and grisly business and the decision to participate in armed conflict is one of the most onerous any govern- ment can make. This paper examines the domestic norms and institutionalized procedures that constrain or guide the office of prime minister of Canada in deciding when and how to put Canada in a state of war or armed conflict. This question assumes greater importance and subtlety because in contemporary times, formal declarations of war, which in past would have followed intense parliamentary debates, now seem anachronistic. In modern times, states engage in armed conflicts, whether aggressive1 or defensive, without adopting the technical procedure of formally “declaring” war on perceived enemy-states. Indeed, so ubiquitous and recurrent is this phenomenon of “undeclared warfare” that some scholars have suggested that the technical concept of war (declaration of war) has been effectively replaced by the “factual concept of armed conflict.”2 An obvious implication of this trend is that Canadians may not realize that their troops may be engaged in armed conflicts somewhere without as much as a prior parliamentary debate on the necessity of otherwise of participating in an armed conflict.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".