The right debate: airpower, the future of war, Canadian strategic interests, and the JSF decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public debate on the government's decision to purchase the F-35 joint strike fighter (JSF) has been dominated by process and cost considerations. Secondary in this debate has been the utility of the F-35 for Canadian sovereignty missions and the F-35's capabilities relative to a range of alternatives, which include unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Explicitly missing is any analysis of the strategic-political considerations that underpin the decision to maintain a multi-role fighter capability. Such considerations, in turn, are driven by assessments of the relationship between airpower and future warfare, and Canadian strategic interests on the world stage, which combined to lead to the F-35 decision. Beneath the surface of the public debate are fundamentally different views about the roles Canada should undertake internationally and in cooperation with its allies. In effect, critics of the F-35 decision are seeking to limit Canadian capabilities in order to limit Canadian options overseas.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".