Understanding National Security as Contextual: The Implications for Small State Defence Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes that the concept of national security is contextual, and therefore is viewed differently by small and large states. Additionally, it is argued that state military responses within their overarching national security approach should reflect the unique demands of their specific strategic environment. This proposition is based on analysis of the national security literature of selected large and small state cases. The national security discourses of United States, China, and Russia indicate a threat-based approach to defence policy which focuses on constructing a narrative around competing actors as threats to global stability. On the other hand, the small state discourses selected from New Zealand, Poland, Canada, and Chile, focus on defining and articulating the strategic environment they find themselves in rather than on threats. Despite these different perspectives, both small and large states employ the same model for developing their military contribution to national security, which may be seen as problematic for smaller actors as government and citizens’ expectations of state militaries increase in the post-Cold War international environment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".