“Man plans,<scp>G</scp>od laughs”:<scp>C</scp>anada's national strategy for protecting critical infrastructure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Critical Infrastructure Protection seeks to enhance the physical and cyber‐security of key public and private assets and mitigate the effects of natural disasters, industrial accidents and terrorist attacks. In 2009, several C anadian governments published the National Strategy and Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure ( NS & AP ), a framework for governments and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure – largely in the private sector – to collaborate on the security and increased resiliency of C anada's critical assets. Drawing on the social science risk literature, audits, and a three‐year research and education project, this article argues that the strategy of relationship building, collaborative risk management and information sharing is under‐developed and limited by market competition, incompatible institutional cultures, and legal, logistical and political constraints. The NS & AP should better delineate risks and identify how governments can work with industry, and acknowledge the paradox between trust and transparency, the role of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprise, and how risk management processes can vary.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it