Bibliographic record
Abstract
This policy commentary critically reviews Canada's National Quantum Strategy (NQS) to evaluate whether it integrates a values approach to mitigate any potential regional, national, and global disparities as part of a responsible quantum approach. Our analysis reveals that Canada's quantum strategy focuses on fostering the identification, development, and commercialization of technologies for economic gain at national, regional, and international levels. Both provincial and federal governments actively collaborate with research institutions and businesses within four distinct research and innovation hubs to establish “quantum zones” as emerging paradiplomatic actors. Internationally, Canada is positioning itself as a leader in quantum technology through grants, research and development partnerships, and country-specific Trade Missions with like-minded states. This commentary highlights the need to embed values, such as sustainability and equitability, into the development and application of quantum technologies and future iterations of the NQS to address societal impacts.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".