MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028915625 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2011.638196

The future of Canadian airpower and the F-35

2011· article· en· W2028915625 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rob Huebert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)National securityAerospacePower (physics)PurchasingPoliticsPurchasing powerStrategic studiesAeronauticsOperations researchEngineeringLawOperations managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Harper Government's announcement in July 2010 that it would be purchasing sixty-five F-35 aircraft unleashed a storm a storm of controversy. Much of it focused on the anticipated cost of purchasing the aircraft. As the aircraft is still in development the final cost is uncertain. However the focus on costs misses the real debate about the need for the aircraft. What needs to be considered is whether in the future Canada needs the airpower that is provided by the F-35s. As a medium power, does Canada need the capability provided by fighter aircraft as it moves into the twenty-first century? Will Canada require the ability to engage in future hostile aerospace environments? Will Canada need to have airpower to defend its borders and to defend future foreign deployments? These are the real questions that need to be asked. Once these questions have been addressed, then the issue of costs may be examined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207