The Chill Sets In: National Security and the Decline of Equality in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 11, 2001, individuals claiming to act in the name of Islam and coming from Arab countries (mainly Saudi Arabia) launched co-ordinated terror attacks on the U.S. In the aftermath of the attacks, North Americans were told that the world had changed. Three thousand American civilians died in one fell swoop as a group of fanatics declared war on the values “we” in the West hold dear. The attacks were ostensibly intended as retribution for years of post-colonial American meddling in the Muslim world. The U.S. and its allies rose to the occasion and proclaimed their own battle: the “War on Terror,” which commenced in October 2001 with the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, and culminated in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. As the “clash of civilizations,” or, perhaps more appropriately, “clash of fundamentalisms,” was playing itself out with increasing bloodiness abroad, the Antiterrorism Act [“ATA”] was quickly introduced in Canada. On its surface, the ATA purported to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism both within and without our borders. Many observers raised concerns that the ATA went too far. They argued that the government adopted it too hastily and without adequate safeguards to prevent its arbitrary or discriminatory application. At the time of writing, the ATA is before a Senate Review Committee. The findings of this Review Committee will likely reiterate widely-held concerns that the ATA could lead to severe violations of the human rights of suspected and accused “terrorists”, and to the targeting and profiling of Muslims and Arabs in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".