MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1897303663

Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence From the Sea: Interoperability and Sea-Based BMD

2003· article· en· W1897303663 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris Bullock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyInteroperabilityFlexibility (engineering)Ballistic missileMissileAeronauticsPopulationPolitical scienceSurvivabilityComputer securityBusinessInternational tradeEngineeringLawComputer scienceEconomicsManagementSociologyAerospace engineeringDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current debate over missile defences in North America is focused on the defence of national territory and the technological feasibility of proposed ballistic missile defence systems. The evolutionary shift of Canadian defence policy towards an expeditionary strategy, however, indicates a requirement for some level of BMD capability to protect deployed troops and the relatively unprotected logistic, administration and civilian population centres. Adversaries will likely use these politically charged weapons to bypass superior frontline conventional forces to strike the more vulnerable rear areas. This article proposes that the Canadian Navy offers the most cost-effective and flexible approach to BMD. Sea-based BMD benefits from the same characteristics that warships bring to their other functions, notably their flexibility, versatility, and strategic mobility. Underlining the entire debate is the requirement for interoperability with the US Navy in the fielding an integrated defence against these asymmetrical weapons.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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