MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035789637 · doi:10.1111/capa.12365

Bridging the academic‐policy gap in Canadian defence: What more can be done?

2020· article· en· W3035789637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Juneau, Philippe Lagassé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Bridge (graph theory)Political sciencePublic relationsWork (physics)Public administrationSociologyEngineeringComputer securityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article assesses the academia‐policy gap in Canadian defence. The field of Canadian defence studies is inherently interested in the work of defence practitioners, and the Department of National Defence has had an ongoing interest in supporting academic defence expertise. A gap nonetheless persists between the two communities, owing to their different cultures, approaches, and objectives. Drawing on personal experiences as members of both the academic and policy worlds and on findings from semi‐structured interviews with serving and retired defence officials, the article examines the nature of academia‐policy gap in Canadian defence, the factors that make the gap persist, and what measures can help bridge the gap.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207