Nuanced futures: Canadian and US defence in the North American Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the United States have a shared interest in North American defence, and both have committed to spending on Arctic defence capabilities. Defence interactions with China and Russia, and the development of new weapons systems, have put a spotlight on Arctic defence. Much of the resulting activity is preparation for potential, future competition rather than concerns about confrontation in the short term. Nevertheless, preparation discrepancies between Canadian and US approaches to Arctic defence become apparent. In particular, the United States takes a more forward-leaning military approach to Arctic security than does Canada, with a defence-centric military posture. These differences are not insurmountable, and shared understanding of the most significant defence threats related to the North American Arctic, in addition to the long-standing NORAD connection, represent solid foundations. Nevertheless, differences represent areas of friction that could be exploited by adversaries and Canada–US dialogue to minimize the effect of this non-alignment in approaches will be critical.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".