Fighting Change: Representing the Canadian Forces in the 2006–2008 Fight Recruitment Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the military in Canadian society has long been an issue of debate. Particularly since the Somalia scandal of 1993, the Canadian military has attempted to repair its damaged reputation among Canadians. Since that time, the Canadian Forces has represented itself as an organization based on quality leadership, strong ethics, and commitment to international security. But have representations like this changed with the increased combat-focused role the Canadian military has played recently? The 2006-2008 Canadian Forces television ad campaign presents an interesting opportunity to analyze the Canadian military’s construction of identity. This article interrogates the representations constructed in the Fight recruitment campaign and finds that while some shifts have occurred, the Canadian Forces appears to be fighting a representational change overall.Le rôle de l’armée dans la société canadienne a longtemps été un sujet de débat. Particulièrement depuis le scandale de la Somalie de 1993, l’armée canadienne a tenté de réparer sa réputation endommagée chez les Canadiens. Depuis ce temps, les Forces canadiennes ont représenté lui-même comme une organisation basée sur un leadership de qualité, une éthique forte, et l’engagement à la sécurité internationale. Mais comme ce sont des représentations changé avec la mission de combat axé sur l’augmentation de l’armée canadienne a joué récemment? La campagne 2006-08 des Forces canadiennes de publicité à la télévision présente une opportunité intéressante à analyser la construction de l’armée canadienne de l’identité. Cet article interroge les représentations construites à la campagne de recrutement de combat et conclut que si certains changements ont eu lieu, les Forces canadiennes semble être la lutte contre un changement de représentation globale.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".