Meet Me in the Middle: Evaluating Middle Power Cyber Doctrine and Strategic Culture Through the Cases of Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global expansion in reliance on information and communication technologies has thrust the digital world of cyberspace into the forefront of strategic security discourse. Meanwhile, the responsibilities, capabilities, and strategic interests of middle powers have been fraught with ambiguity and debate in international relations literature. While existing studies examine how the cyberspace domain has become an increasingly competitive arena for geopolitics and strategic competition between and among great powers, there remains a dearth of literature evaluating cyberspace objectives and behaviour for middle powers. This paper aims to fill this gap, drawing on prior frameworks of analysis used for great power cyber studies, alongside extant middle power literature, to employ the theoretical lens of strategic culture toward evaluating the unique behaviour of middle powers in cyberspace. This paper thus suggests that cyberspace presents scholars with an outlet to further examine and define middle powers in the international realm, as well as middle powers with opportunities to assert and potentially expand their position in the global order, while protecting and promoting their distinct interests. This paper also incorporates a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative cyber data, and the deployment of a Most Similar Systems Design to assess two middle power case studies: Canada and Australia. The findings help to challenge and refine our understanding of what roles, capabilities and objectives define middle power behaviour in cyberspace, as well as provide insight into the implications that the rise of cyber operations and security considerations might have for Canadian and Australian grand strategy, and middle power strategic culture more generally. Ultimately, this study serves to refine past theoretical assumptions in the context of a novel and expanding domain for statecraft and competition, and identify a foundation from which the principles of a more coherent and effective cyber doctrine for middle powers might be pursued.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".