MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386408431 · doi:10.1177/00207020231195109

Why AUKUS and not CAUKUS? It's a Potluck, not a Party

2023· article· en· W4386408431 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

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPillarNeglectPolitical scienceNational securityInternational tradePolitical economyLawPublic administrationBusinessSociologyEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2021, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia announced a new security arrangement, dubbed AUKUS, focused on helping Australia acquire nuclear submarines. This caused anxiety in Canada, especially as it emerged that Canadian officials had been caught unaware. In this paper, we argue that AUKUS 1.0 (now increasingly referred to as the first pillar) is not a problem for Canada, despite this early concern: Canada may need to renew its aging submarine fleet, but it is unlikely to acquire nuclear submarines in the foreseeable future. That said, there are broader reasons for Canada to be worried: its exclusion from AUKUS is illustrative of its neglect of foreign, defence, and national security policy more generally. Moreover, as the pact evolves into AUKUS 2.0 (or the second pillar) and broadens its remit to cooperation on emerging defence technologies, Canada's absence from its proliferating working groups risks imposing serious costs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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