A Canadian Space Odyssey: Canada, the Great Space Powers, and the Space Power Dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada, despite being the third country to launch an artificial satellite, was unable to develop into a space power commanding a long-term strategic presence in outer space during the Cold War. Whereas the "great space powers" of the period, the United States and Soviet Union, held a dominant position in the space environment, Canada's space power influence declined over the years. By analyzing declassified strategic documents and the strategic literature on space power, and by interviewing members of Canada's national space organizations, this thesis will compare the strategic, political and economic variables of space power to determine why Canada did not maintain space supremacy when compared with the United States and Soviet Union from 1957 to 1991. This thesis concludes that Canada did not develop into a space power during the Cold War because, opposite the great space powers, the country did not have a comprehensive space strategy, political leadership and support, or the economic resources that would allow for the development of a long-term satellite presence.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".