MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098113965 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2014.934861

A Canadian naval turn to East Asia in the making? Interests, expectations and challenges

2014· article· en· W2098113965 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Adam P. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsGeopoliticsPolitical scienceNavyPoliticsEast AsiaService (business)InstitutionChinaEconomyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing chorus from Canada's strategic community to include political-security aspects into Ottawa's renewed interactions with East Asia, moving beyond an exclusive economic orientation. As the rise of East Asia emerges as the most important geopolitical feature of the international system, Canada, like its allies have already begun, should shift strategic focus it is argued. In particular, a renewed and sustained naval presence necessitating a naval rebalance westwards is promoted as an effective contribution towards regional stability and bolstering Canada's credentials. Wanting to extend the discussion beyond the current focus on interests and benefits received, this paper argues the impacts to the Navy as an institution must also be brought into the debate. A strategic and operational refocus towards East Asia shall involve more than just repositioning ships from one coast to another to include a wide spectrum of changes needed and compromises made in terms of inter-service relations, funding, capabilities, missions, interactions with new partners, an intimate understanding of the region, and the almost certain reduction of military operations from other theatres. Inclusion of these matters will create a more holistic assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of such an option to support both regional security and Canada's interests at large.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207