Democratic Identity, Political Policing, and the Other side of the US-Canada Security Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the US maintain one of the closest international partnerships in the world, but there are concerns about its future. Donald Trump's election generated anxieties about the rise of autarkic or authoritarian politics in the region. These worries persist as it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration was a temporary interruption to liberal governance or a signifier of more profound change. Canadian security scholars have contemplated whether an illiberal shift may disrupt the US-Canada security community. This article intervenes in these discussions by emphasizing the extent to which prejudices and political policing have fostered the community's emergence and operation. Archival investigation reveals that illiberal practices have proven reconcilable with a liberal identity throughout the community's development. Therefore, without dismissing existing concerns, we should be vigilant of the possibility that the security community may be internalized within democratic retrenchment, rather than corroded by it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".