Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with many states, Canada has taken a restrained approach to anti-terrorism since the events of 11 September 2001. This paper briefly recounts Canada’s experience with terrorism to demonstrate that Canada, like many other states, is familiar with terrorism and faces real risks of terrorism in the future. It argues that Canada’s experience with domestic terrorism is of particular interest because it provides an example of how separatist violence can be peacefully channelled into a democratic and legal struggle for self-determination, including secession. The remainder of the paper examines the evolution of Canada’s national security policy since 9/11. First, the article examines the criminal law phase of Canada’s response to 9/11 and the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act at the end of 2001. Second, it examines the immigration law phase of Canada’s response to 9/11, in which Canada relies on immigration legislation as anti-terrorism law. It suggests that threats to freedom are distributed unevenly in post-9/11 Canada, with disproportionate impacts on non-citizens and especially on Muslim and Arab non-citizens, both directly because of immigration law and indirectly, because of enforcement practices and public opinion. Third, the article examines the public safety phase in Canada’s national security policy, which has given greater attention to a broader range of threats to security including diseases and disasters. Finally, it argues in favour of a developing, but still incomplete, fourth phase in Canada’s national security policy that emphasizes review and oversight by both parliament and independent bodies. It holds that independent review is necessary both for ensuring that the state’s national security activities are effective as a response to terrorism, and for ensuring that such measures are not overbroad and do not unjustly catch and grievously harm the innocent.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".