The Significance of Politicization: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Procurement Processes in Canada and Australia, 2000–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When examining the acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) by most western defence departments, the close historical and military connections between these countries with the United States only go so far in terms of an explanation for why some have adopted this platform and others have not. Adoption is by no means automatic and the features of large military platform procurement processes, which are both long-term and involve very large expenditures, with their idiosyncratic nature, multiple actors and strategic policy directions, have played an important role in this area, just as they have when purchasing warships and other military equipment. In this chapter, we compare how Australia and Canada chose to operate when considering the replacement of their ageing F-18 multirole fighters. Again, this process features two very similar countries and the same weapons system, and the different outcome each has had in this case again reveals the significant factors concerning the processes which led to those decisions, and the impact of politics in explaining both the commonalities and differences in the defence procurement approaches of the two countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".