Planning without guidance: Canadian defence policy and planning, 1993–2004
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: The decade between the release of Canada's 1994 White Paper on Defence and its 2005 International Policy Statement was a period of crisis within the Canadian Forces. The Forces' operational tempo increased significantly even as the defence budget was cut by a quarter. Defence issues were perceived to have very little profile in Ottawa, and military officers felt their concerns were not being heard. Despite rapid changes in the global security environment, dramatic budget cuts, and frequent deployments, the government failed to update its policy guidance to reflect these new challenges. However, the Canadian Forces gradually learned to survive in the absence of political guidance. Defence planners initiated a number of reforms aimed at anticipating future missions, preserving combat capabilities, and winning more resources. Drawing on a series of interviews with senior military officers and civilian officials at the Department of National Defence and a reading of the relevant literature on Canadian defence policy and strategic planning, the author examines the process of adaptation, focusing particular attention on the adoption of capabilities‐based planning for resource allocation and mitigating risk. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these developments for civil–military relations in Canada and presents a case for institutional reform.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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