Defence intelligence and the Crown prerogative in Canada
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
Abstract This article examines the role of the Crown prerogative in the intelligence activities of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces. Defined as the legal authorities of the Crown as recognized by common law, the prerogative was at the centre of two reports by Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP). These reports questioned the prerogative as a source of authority for defence intelligence and argued for its displacement by parliamentary statute. This article critiques NSICOP’s findings about the prerogative, notably regarding its continuing relevance and the comparisons that were drawn between defence intelligence and Canada's civilian intelligence services. In addition, the article argues that the prerogative is democratically legitimate, being subject to parliamentary limitation and scrutiny, and to judicial review when appropriate. The article concludes that expanding the scope and authorities of defence intelligence is the strongest rationale for displacing the prerogative.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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