Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians live in an increasingly interconnected, complex and often dangerous world. They believe that threats to security and public safety, whether it be terrorist attack, the spread of infectious disease or natural disaster, are not just problems that other nations face. In April 2004, Canada released Securing an Open Society: Canada's National Security Strategy. This was Canada's first ever comprehensive statement of national security policy and is billed as an action plan designed to ensure that Canada is prepared for and can respond to current and future threats. This paper asks whether Canada's National Security Strategy is required and valid. The paper explores the requirement for a formal National Security Strategy by verifying the requirement from an international and domestic perspective. Canadian values and interests are then assessed to determine opportunities and challenges, before the focus areas in Securing an Open Society are considered to determine validity. This is followed by a proposed national Ends-Ways-Means-Risks paradigm offered to improve future National Security Strategies. A formal National Security Strategy is necessary for Canada to be a strong and independent nation, and to pursue middle power statecraft in today's environment. Canada's strategy requires an integrated approach, across military, civil and private sector skills, unifying diplomatic, informational, military and economic efforts to combat national threats. A formal National Security Strategy is essential to buttress both national and domestic policy while assisting in making difficult policy choices. Securing an Open Society is a welcome addition that fulfills a national security need by providing guidance and direction. Improved analysis will increase its validity and make it a more compelling document.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".