MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783234813 · doi:10.1177/0967010617748541

From protection to coordinated preparedness: A genealogy of critical infrastructure in Canada

2018· article· en· W2783234813 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip J. Boyle, Shannon Speed

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity Dialogue · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCritical infrastructureDeclarationCorporate governancePreparednessEmergency managementSoftware deploymentPower (physics)Political scienceCivil defensePublic administrationPublic relationsSociologyLawBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides a genealogy of the governance of critical infrastructure in Canada. We focus in particular on a largely unknown and unexamined civil defense initiative introduced during World War II that sought to count, categorize and, under declaration of a national emergency, directly protect what were then known as ‘vital points’ from sabotage. Our analysis recounts major episodes and turning points in the deployment of this organizational apparatus by the various institutions responsible for civil defence and emergency management in which it was embedded. In the latter sections of this article we show how the problem of critical infrastructure was decoupled from the exercise of exceptional emergency power and reconstituted in the form of what we refer to as ‘coordinated preparedness’, through which the governance of critical infrastructure is accomplished in ways that are compatible with the constitutionalization of Canada’s emergency power. We conclude by considering what the governance of critical infrastructure in Canada reveals for critical understandings of emergencies and emergency power.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecurity DialogueSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207