Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since September 11th, 2001, the Bush Administration has overhauled the U.S. National Strategic Policy and restructured the Department of Defense. Much of this was in response to the war on terrorism and the newly placed emphasis on homeland defense. Other chances have been in the Washington staffing process for years awaiting an appropriate opportunity to be promulgated. Together these changes altered U.S. security relationships with its allies and especially with Canada. The establishment of U.S. Northern Command, the elimination of U.S. Space Command and the deployment of the National Missile Defense have significant implications for NORAD and the U.S.-Canadian security relationship. The paper's objective is to capture and evaluate, from an American viewpoint, the Canadian perspectives on these changes, their implications for Canada, and the pending decisions the Canadian government will consider. The paper examines the shifts in the North American security landscape the U.S.- Canadian relationship. It analyzes the Canadian security interests, the government's motivations and the public perceptions. The paper will explore the Canadian security and sovereignty issues, and implications of the realignment of unified commands, the risk of marginalizing NORAD, and the deployment of the U.S. National Missile Defense. Lastly, the paper will outline Canadian decisions in pursuit of its national security interests and its collective defense arrangements with the United States.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".