The architecture of community: Intelligence community management in Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many have examined individual intelligence agencies and cooperation between agencies bilaterally, the study of the interdepartmental architecture that is meant to coordinate intelligence communities has been peripheral at best. This is especially true in the case of smaller states, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. However, this architecture is fundamentally important to our understanding of how the secret state operates; how it impacts, and is impacted by, the open state; and, when taken comparatively, is indicative of differing government cultures towards intelligence. Examination of the development of intelligence community management architecture in Australia, Canada and New Zealand reveals that actors in all three communities recognise networks of interdependency between them. However the extent to which they are able to exploit these interdependencies is dependent on larger dynamics in government, supporting the idea that intelligence communities can only be as cohesive as the governments they serve allow them to be.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it