Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores security planning policy in Canada. It provides a historical overview of the securing of cities from the threat of mass violence and demonstrates how violence affects urban populations and the form and function of cities as a result. A purposefully stampeded case study approach is used to determine the state of security planning in Canada and compare selected cities to a benchmark case of Washington D.C. This thesis contributes to the understanding of security planning within Canada in the post September 11, 2001 world and offers insight into strategies used in defense of urban areas The review of literature and discussion sections also provide a critical assessment of security planning which has occurred in the time following WWII, the IRA crisis in Britain the FLQ crisis in Quebec and the terrorist attacks in London and New York in the past decade. Research questions are answered through a case study and literature analysis approach. Results demonstrate that American responses to the threat of terrorism have motivated various governmental agencies to create policy and physical responses to respond to the threat of terrorism. This thesis concludes that Canada, in comparison to the United States and other areas has done little to secure itself against terrorist attack and more specifically that urban planning and municipalities in Canada have done little to integrate anti-terrorism security planning into their planning policy. It is argued that a lack of federal mandates, a lack of motivation and education in planning spheres as well as funding issues are contributing factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".