MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309073398 · doi:10.1111/capa.12498

The perilous prerogative: An argument for legislating defence intelligence in Canada

2022· article· en· W4309073398 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrerogativeArgument (complex analysis)LawGovernment (linguistics)LegislaturePolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyPoliticsPhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) has twice reviewed the intelligence activities of CAF/DND and recommended the government provide explicit legislative authority for those activities. In “Defence intelligence and the Crown prerogative in Canada,” Philippe Lagassé rebukes NSICOP's argument and defends the continued reliance on the Crown prerogative. This article proposes that the critiques raised by Lagassé minimize the importance of the legal and operational concerns raised by NSICOP and do not reflect the legal history of Canadian intelligence activities. It also introduces the argument that the DND/CAF may no longer rely on the Crown prerogative for signals intelligence.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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