Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thethwarted Toronto 18 terrorist plot was an early indication ofthings to come for terrorist financing in Canada and internationally.The self financed plot demonstrated how terrorist cells, even thosenot directed by a terrorist group, could obtain enough money to fullyfund a sophisticated and complex attack. In total, the main elementsof the Toronto 18 plot likely cost thousands of dollars, but theorganiz ers of the plot had accumulated far more than they needed forthe components of the attack and had enough money to rent a safehouse, pay for plane tickets to escape prosecution after the attack, anddevelop a plausible cover story for their activities. De spite thefinancial elements of the plot, no terrorist financing charges were laidin the case. This may have been due to the lack of internationalfunding of the plot and a conceptualization within Canada’s lawenforcement and security services at the tim e that terrorist financingcame from “ The lack of financing charges in this case mayhave had longstanding implications in Canada, where, to date, veryfew charges of this nature have been laid, even 15 years after the plotwas disrupted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.003 |
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".