Asserting Canadian Arctic Sovereignty: Is the Best Offence a Good Defence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Arctic has always occupied a space within our identity as a nation. However, propelled by a changing climate, the expanding search for natural resources, and the actions of international actors, the Arctic has recently assumed a position of political prominence as well. Canada’s Northern Strategy, introduced in 2009, outlines four areas of priority: exercising Canadian Arctic sovereignty, protecting environmental heritage, promoting social and economic development, and the devolution of Northern governance. Furthermore, 2010 saw the announcement of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS)—a $36.6 billion initiative that at once asserts Canadian Arctic sovereignty as a priority for the present government, and displays the Defence-heavy approach that will realize this goal. In light of the growing significance of the Canadian Arctic region, is such an emphasis on Defence initiatives advantageous for the assertion of Canadian Arctic sovereignty? Through the analysis of Cold-War-era Defence memoranda, a juxtaposition of the past and present political environment of the Arctic region is presented. The economic precariousness of the $3.1 billion plan to procure Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships is explored through consideration of the October 2014 budget analysis released by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Finally, the social implications of the current government’s Defence-heavy approach are framed by the narrow definition of human security that they imply. The current NSPS initiative is found to be incompatible with the existing political environment of the Arctic circumpolar region, not only for economic reasons, but because of social implications that threaten Canada’s Arctic sovereignty itself.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".