MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W335540018 · doi:10.21236/ada429290

USNORTHCOM and Canadian Domestic Operations: An Opportunity for Positive Change

2004· report· en· W335540018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen D. McCluskey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOperations researchBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The creation of USNORTHCOM in 2002 was a clear indication that the security environment in North America had undergone a radical transformation. Canada and the United States have a history of bi-national mutual defense arrangements spanning more than sixty years. This monograph examines the Canadian Forces operational ability to meet the challenges of this new security environment. The specific vehicle that we used to assess the Canadian Forces operational capability was the Canadian Forces response to the 1997 Red River Flood. The 1997 Red River Flood proves to be an interesting case study because it allows us to compare the respective military responses of both Canada and the U.S. to a disaster. Although we chose a disaster relief and humanitarian assistance operation as our vehicle for comparison, we contend that the operational level response of the Canadian Forces, and particularly the Army, is indicative of the military response we could expect for other disasters. Our case study reveals that by comparison the Canadian Forces had serious operational shortcomings in 1997. Both the subject and the case study are germane because, at the time of writing, a Canada/U.S. bi-national planning group is working in Colorado Springs to determine how both nations can assist each other militarily in the event of a disaster. We conclude that the operational level shortcomings experienced by the Canadian Forces in 1997 are primarily the result of the force reductions and budget cuts laid out in Canada 's 1994 Defence White Paper. Our examination reveals that the same shortcomings identified in Canada 's defense policy are incorporated in the Canadian Forces operational level joint and army doctrines. We conclude that the Canadian Forces operational level shortcomings demonstrated in 1997 are extant. We recommend that the Canadian Forces use the creation of USNORTHCOM, and the radical change to the North American Security environment that it signifies, as the rationale for justifying the requisite resources to rectify its operational level shortcomings. Simply put, in 1994 the Cold War was over and there was no specific threat that justified the level of defense expenditure of the previous decade. In 2004, there is a specific threat to North America and specifically to Canada 's close friend, trading partner and ally - the United States. USNORTHCOM is tangible proof that the U.S. is prepared to meet that threat. Canada would be ill advised to ignore this proof. The bi-national planning group is also tangible evidence that Canada is preparing itself to operate in the new security environment but we find that this step alone is insufficient. We recommend that Canadian doctrine be amended to provide quantifiable measures of effectiveness for the conduct of operations. We recommend that operational level training be conducted to prepare the Canadian Forces and the Army to perform the disaster relief and humanitarian assistance tasks demanded of them by the Government. We recommend that the role of Canada 's Reserve Forces be reexamined to determine if they can perform economy of force operations domestically. Finally, we recommend that use of force training be conducted, on a regular basis, for all soldiers who could be called upon to conduct domestic 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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207