MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122810304 · doi:10.7202/022129ar

A One Ocean Fleet : the Atlantic and Canadian Naval Policy

2005· article· en· W2122810304 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joël J. Sokolsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaRoyal Canadian NavyRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorth Atlantic TreatyNavyAllianceSubmarineSovereigntyPolitical scienceAeronauticsCold warInternational tradeOceanographyLawEngineeringBusinessPoliticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the beginnings of the Cold War until the present the Canadian Navy has been a one ocean fleet, postured primarily to supply anti-submarine warfare (ASW) forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Atlantic. Various plans, including the 1987 White Paper on defence, to give the Navy more balance in terms of its areas of operation, mix of forces and missions, have been largely unsuccessful. The main reason for this is that the NATO maritime role has been directly related to the long-standing Canadian foreign policy objective of participating in this multilateral Alliance. In addition, forces earmarked for NATO's Atlantic Command (ACLANT) could also be used for North American maritime roles in cooperation with the United States Navy (USN) and for non-military sovereignty protection tasks. Recent dramatic changes in the international security environment combined with domestic budgetary pressures are likely to result in a continuation of this Atlantic orientation in Canadian naval policy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207