Drawing a Line in the Snow: the Geopolitical Place-making of Canadian Security Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical geopolitics has grown to be one of the more vibrant sub-disciplines in geography through the implementation of theories and techniques of postmodernism and poststructuralism.These theories and techniques have opened new questions and subjects to the scope of inquiry of critical geopolitics.Fundamental to the discipline is the notion that discourses of power are crucial to shaping the understanding of objects and concepts.This notion can be applied to geography in the scripting of global spaces as a political construct: spaces are defined in a political manner.Rather than spaces existing as they are described, spaces are constructed and produced by the discourses surrounding them.Similarly, security is a discursive subject such that its definition and formation are based upon the discourses that imply vague notions of what security means.Key to understanding security as a construction is the notion of terrorism, which is a signifier to the construction of security.Because notions of terror and terrorism are products of discourses, security can be established in a similar constructive form as it operates to mitigate the threat from terrorism.This thesis focuses on the concept of security as a geographic and geopolitical construct.Through an examination and deconstruction of Canadian security policy, I argue that the conceptualization of security is an act of geopolitical place-making as spaces are defined as secure and insecure through a discourse dominated by those in power.This argument is developed through an example of the notion of terrorism, itself a political construct, which highlights the geopolitical nature of constructing security and insecurity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".