MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2256292173 · doi:10.11575/prism/26238

From SOSUS to Satellites: Sovereignty, Security and Surveillance in the Canadian Arctic

2015· dissertation· en· W2256292173 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
William Carruthers

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de la Défense NationaleCanadian Space AgencyCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsSovereigntyArcticPolitical scienceThe arcticGeographySatelliteComputer securityComputer scienceLawOceanographyGeologyAstronomyPoliticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis will present a detailed discussion of the relationship between sovereignty and security in the Canadian Arctic. More specifically, it will analyze the historical trends and current aims of surveillance projects in the region. This thesis will argue that the government of Stephen Harper prefers to answer sovereignty challenges with military security. It concludes that despite other branches of government such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Coast Guard being the traditional enforcers of sovereignty, they have had little input in establishing the surveillance capabilities in the Arctic. Further, with the military having control over all aspects of the surveillance infrastructure, this government is positioning the military above other departments with respect to Arctic capabilities. Ultimately, the Harper Government has used sovereignty to sell a military build-up in the Arctic to Canadians. Without the guise of sovereignty, such expenditures would be difficult for the public to accept.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→