Terrorism Threats and Preparedness in Canada: The Perspective of the Canadian Public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Canada has not experienced a major terrorist attack, an increased global pending threat has put preparedness at the top of the Canadian government's agenda. Given its strong multicultural community and close proximity to the recently targeted United States, the Canadian experience is unique. However, minimal research exists on the public's reactions to terrorism threats and related preparedness strategies. In order for response initiatives to be optimally effective, it is important that the public's opinions regarding terrorism and preparedness be considered. This qualitative study examined perceptions of terrorism threats among Canadians living in Central and Eastern Canada (N = 75) in the fall of 2004. Conceptualizations of terrorism threat, psychosocial impacts, and sense of preparedness were explored in a series of qualitative interviews. Findings revealed that the majority of Canadians did not feel overly threatened by terrorist attacks, due in part to a perception of terrorist threats as related to global sociopolitical events and a positive Canadian identity. In addition, while most respondents did not feel they were individually affected by the threat of terrorism, there was some concern regarding larger societal impacts, such as increased paranoia, discrimination, and threats to civil liberties. Participants' views on preparedness focused largely on the utility of emergency preparedness strategies and the factors that could mitigate or inhibit preparedness at the individual and institutional levels, with a specific focus on education. Finally, the significant relevance of these findings in shaping terrorism preparedness, both in Canada and generally, is discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".