Bibliographic record
Abstract
y n e S . c o xThis book began in the spring of 2007 when invitations were sent out to participate in a round-table discussion on Canadian security following 9/11.After the tragic events of 11 September 2001, claims about the rapidly changing nature of the international security environment and associated calls to wage war on "global terror, " to promote democracy, and to liberate Afghan women were prominent and very often taken for granted.After the March 2003 American invasion of Iraq, such claims and calls became more and more the target of criticism and subjected to academic and political debates.In Canada, these debates took what seemed like an unprecedented turn when the Canadian government decided to send troops to war in Afghanistan in February 2006.The debates, but also the practical difficulties, surrounding the Canadian mission in Afghanistan were signs to us that it was more than time to discuss, reassess, and re-evaluate Canada's global policies and its role in the post-9/11 world order, notably in the context of arguments about American power, hegemony, and imperialism.Hence, in March 2008, Bruno hosted a group session at Laurentian University (Sudbury, Ontario).The event brought together Canadian scholars of different disciplines (mostly political science but also from geography, sociology, and criminology), members of the Canadian Armed Forces, officials of the City of Greater Sudbury responsible for municipal security and emergency measures, and local members of the War Resisters and the
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".