MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914864135 · doi:10.24908/fede.v19i1.10749

Strategic Analysis of the Appointment Requirements for the Minister of National Defence: Should he wear the uniform as well?

2018· article· en· W2914864135 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Madison Cross

Bibliographic record

VenueFederalism-E · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime ministerParliamentChristian ministryPolitical scienceLawPopulationPosition (finance)Government (linguistics)Public administrationPoliticsSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

November 4, 2015 marked the day that Canadian Armed Forces veteran, Harjit Singh Sajjan, was sworn in as Minister of National Defence.[1] The Canadian population applauded the appointment made by Justin Trudeau because it appeared natural to have a Minister of National Defence who had previously worn the Canadian Armed Forces uniform. The support was an unexplained phenomenon; for some reason, the Canadian public was excited, curious and confident in the ministry’s new leader because of his close ties to the department. Though many veterans have held the position of Minister of National Defence, it has never been a requirement to be a veteran to hold the position. Many scholars believe that a Minister of National Defence who has prior military experience is more of an asset in this role. Despite this belief, there remains no military prerequisites for the Minister of National Defence position. This paper will analyze the role of the Minister of National Defence and discuss why having a member of parliament who is also a veteran is not a practical policy to continue implementing in future governments.
 
 [1] Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada Following the Swearing-in of the 29th Ministry. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2017, from http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/statement-prime-minister-canada-following-swearing-29th-ministry-2070297.htm

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederalism-ESame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207