La gouvernance de la sécurité au sein de l’UE : un nouveau défi pour le Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1976, Canada and the EU developed and enlarged their relations including not only investment and trade, but also international security, environment, justice, culture, etc. During the last decade, the European Union progressively became an actor in the field of security and defence with the adoption of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). ESDP is entering in the logic outside of the traditional framework analysis that conceives security as a natural input, linked to territorial defence and assumed only by the State via military means. If ESDP entered in an intergovernmental logic, it is no longer the exclusive field of the Member States, but rather the result of interactions between a broad variety of public and private actors. In this new EU security governance, Canada is bound to face a major challenge, but it’s not sure that it is conscious of all the possibilities for its foreign and security policy! Full text available: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.156
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".