Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's intelligence system has undergone a number of major changes in the past few years. After the terrorist attacks in Canada in October 2014 several laws were passed that significantly expand the powers of the two main intelligence services - the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) - and create a new system of oversight over these services. Passed in 2015, Bill C-51 empowers CSIS to “take measures to reduce threat” to Canada, thus shifting the focus of its work from surveillance to actively countering forces hostile to Canada within the country. In 2017 the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians was established. This committee's activity is heavily influenced by a prime minister. All committee members are appointed on his recommendation. He is also the first to read of all committee reports and can censor these reports. As a result, the ability of this committee to control the intelligence services is seriously limited. Passed in 2019 Bill C-59 creates two new oversight bodies to oversee the Canadian intelligence community as a whole. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency has the right to consider any activity of CSIS and CSE and the actions of other agencies related to national security and intelligence. Bill C-59 also introduces the position of an Intelligence Commissioner who will be able to approve (or not to approve) proposed operations of the Canadian intelligence services. Bill C-59 gives the CSE the right to conduct defensive and active cyber operations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it