MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396531670 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15913

The Bureaucracy of Intervention: Explaining Canadian Armed Forces Deployment Variations 2014-2018

2023· dissertation· en· W4396531670 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michael George Fejes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDMTCCanadian Armed ForcesMinistère de la Défense NationaleGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSoftware deploymentBureaucracyIntervention (counseling)Political scienceComputer securityPublic administrationEngineeringComputer sciencePsychologyLawPoliticsSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the closure of the Afghanistan mission in March 2014, the Canadian government was presented with a distinctive opportunity to “re-set” the overseas posture of its armed forces. Almost all personnel serving overseas were brought back to Canadian soil before the government announced several new operations. From this “re-set” derives the central research question of this dissertation: Why do states who are not threatened deploy their armed forces in various speeds and sizes? Competing scholars who study foreign and defence policy analysis have been unable to reach a consensus and explain why states like Canada decide to participate quickly in certain military coalitions (or not), or why the executive decides to contribute specific numbers of personal and resources to particular overseas missions (or not). Utilizing a critical small-n case study approach and focusing on Canada’s most recent military deployments to Iraq, Ukraine, and Mali, as well as the non-deployment of forces to Columbia, this research asks where deployment recommendations originate from within the bureaucracy and what is their impact on the executive. Using purposive sampling and relying on semi-structured interviews with select members of the Canadian Public Service and the Armed Forces, I combined Tsebelis’ veto player’s theory and Halperin and Clapp’s theory of bureaucratic politics to the Canadian federal bureaucracy to identify and explain the level of bureaucratic influence on post-Afghanistan non-combat interventions. My research found that federal bureaucracies acted as veto players - based on both departmental mandates and departmental self-interests - and were able to demonstrate substantial influence on the speed and size of CAF deployments, delaying their support until departmental interests were met. My research demonstrates that Bureaucratic Intervention Theory, when applied to a federal bureaucracy, has greater explanatory powers than had been previously understood, contributes to an enhanced understanding of the current executive decision-making process, and helps illustrate the bureaucratic consensus required to ensure future CAF deployments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207