Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Canada-United States (US) defence relationship is unparalleled in the international system in terms of cooperation and interoperability, Canada’s responses to offers of participation in two US missile defence programs in recent times confused many observers. This thesis seeks to provide an explanation as to why Canadians were reluctant to engage in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1985 and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program in 2005. It searches for a deeper explanation than offered thus far by scholars. Phillipe Lagassé and Patrick Lennox have both argued that the most prominent factor in Canada’s rejection of these two US missile defence initiatives is the evident support Canadians exhibit for arms control and strategic stability. The thesis builds on the work of Lagassé and Lennox but goes further by suggesting that Canadian anxieties related to how these programs would impact arms control and strategic stability can be traced to Canadians’ support of internationalism and, in particular, the tenet of internationalism that, according to Kim Richard Nossal, Stephane Roussel and Stephane Paquin, emphasizes the pursuit of world order.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".