Canada, the United States and the Command and Control of Air Forces for Continental Air Defence from Ogdensburg to NORAD, 1940-1957
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the evolution of the bilateral Canadian-American continental air defence operational-level command and control relationship from the 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement to the establishment of the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) in 1957.It takes a functional approach, focusing on the efforts of Canadian air force officers in conjunction with their American counterparts to develop efficient command and control arrangements to ensure effective air defence of North America while at the same time safeguarding Canadian sovereignty.It explores the evolution of certain command and control principles such as cooperation, unity of command, operational command, and operational control, and argues that because Canada was able to avoid having its air defence forces come under American command, Canadian sovereignty was assured.It also demonstrates that the Canada-U.S. bilateral continental air defence command and control relationship had its origins in Canadian, American, and British joint command and control culture and practice.Canadian steadfastness, along with compromise and accommodation between the two North American nations, operational and doctrinal factors, and also cordial professional working relationships and personalities, all played important roles in the evolution of this command and control relationship from the "cooperation-unity of command" paradigm of the Second World War towards "operational control" in an air defence context throughout the early Cold War.This paradigm shift culminated in 1957 with the integration and centralization of combined air defences under an overall NORAD commander exercising operational control.The thesis also demonstrates that by taking How much space do I have?This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of several people and I will now do my best to thank as many of them as possible.First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Allan English, for all of his help and advice, for sharing his impressive knowledge of command and control in the Canadian Forces, and for his example of perseverance and professionalism during my time as one of his graduate students.I would also like to thank my co-advisor, Rich Gimblett, for his help and advice, and especially his positive encouragement and reassurance to me during some difficult times.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".