Discursive battlefields: Support(ing) the troops in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winning hearts and minds in counterinsurgency missions is not only a strategy to be used on foreign populations, but also one that is necessary on the “home front.” This article is focused on the home battlefield; it is an analysis of the efforts by Canadian political elites to justify the use of military resources during the 2001–2011 interventions in Afghanistan. To fully understand Canadian public opinion of the Afghanistan war requires assessing domestic discursive “battlefields.” This article examines domestic debates as a key “battleground” in the war to win public consent for Afghanistan. I argue that the absence of active resistance to military involvement in the Afghan mission can best be explained by examining discourse about Support(ing) the Troops, the effect of which was to censure anti-war voices. In short, despite public discontent about the war, Support the Troops discourse was manoeuvred in a way that stigmatized anti-war narratives. This article considers how the rhetoric of Support the Troops movements in Canada played a role in normalizing militarization, and how this discourse was manoeuvred to legitimize military activities in Afghanistan.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it