MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361807550 · doi:10.1134/s1019331622210225

Canadian Military Policy in 2022: Preliminary Results

2022· article· en· W4361807550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitry Volodin

Bibliographic record

VenueHerald of the Russian Academy of Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceBallistic missileUkrainianArcticPublic administrationMissileGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada began to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine in February 2022 and sent heavy weapons two months later. In 2022 the Trudeau government agreed to increase the Canadian military contingent in Latvia as part of a plan to strengthen NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe. However, Canada did not comply with the NATO requirement for its members to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The aggravation of the Ukrainian crisis in 2022 did not lead to an increase in Canada’s military commitments in Europe, but to an increase in the North American dimension in Canada’s military policy. The Trudeau government used the aggravation of the Ukrainian crisis and hostilities in Europe to launch an expensive project with the United States to modernize their joint North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Canada’s main contribution to the modernization of NORAD will be to provide territory for the new NORAD surveillance system, which will include over-the-horizon radars, a network of other radar systems in the Canadian North, and space-based surveillance. Providing its territory for the new NORAD surveillance system and the purchase of F-35 fighters means Canada’s participation in the defense of North America from cruise and hypersonic missiles. There remains the possibility of Canadian support for US missile defense against ballistic missiles. Canada supports the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO not just as new military allies in the Arctic, but also as countries like-minded with Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHerald of the Russian Academy of SciencesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207