Threat-based defence planning : implications for Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Network for Strategic Analysis (NSA) has been tasked by the Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) to conduct a comparative study on defence planning. Three sets of questions guide this report: 1) What is the regional, global and threat-based approach to operational and strategic planning? What are the pros and cons of each of them in the 21st century? 2) Who is using each of them now and why did they adopt them? How do the users of the global and threat-based approach feel about alternative frameworks? 3) What lessons can be learned for Canada? The report is divided in three parts. The first section presents the main approaches to force planning, their respective strengths and weaknesses, and illustrates them with the evolution of U.S. force planning. The second section reviews the current defence planning of seven allies and partners: Australia, France, Israel, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The last section presents some policy considerations for 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it