Made in Canada: The evolution of Canadian counter‐terrorism policy in the post‐9/11 world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Literature on Canada‐United States (US) counter‐terrorism (CT) cooperation from the early 2000s presumed that Canadian CT policy was driven by US security imperatives and fear, leaving little room for Canada to develop its own path in fighting terrorism. It presumed that: the Canadian government was more worried about the US reaction to terrorism than terrorism itself; Canadian security policy sought to be “separate but cooperative”; and Canadian policy was informed by “wise” understandings of the US. We argue these assumptions no longer hold. Since 2011, with the rise of the Islamic State and foreign fighter activity, the Canadian government took independent steps to address national security concerns in a multilateral environment. We use process tracing to track evolutions in the Passenger Protect Program (Canada's “no‐fly list” policy), showing how Canada has increasingly asserted agency in response to violent extremism. It suggests the prior scholarly consensus on the US role in Canadian CT policy must be rethought.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".