Third Place in the Space Race: Securitizing Rhetoric, the Logic of Threat, and the Securitization of the Canadian Civil Space Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The description of the Space Age as the “Space Race” would require there to be both winners and losers. But in the case of Canada, its trajectory as an emerging spacefaring state at the height of the Cold War was not based on winning the competition but rather ensuring that Canada could continue the race, no matter the pace. From the beginning, Canada took an independent path based on its own national interests within the larger context of the rivalry created between the United States and Soviet Union. What is curious about this approach is that, unlike the superpowers, Canada’s national civil space program shifted its focus several times over the course of the Cold War due to domestic factors, ranging from an emphasis on space science activities to domestic communication satellites. This dissertation questions the security dilemma interpretation of space-faring states during the Cold War by moving beyond the state-centric argument of space power rivalry and escalation and instead focuses on the role that motivated bureaucratic actors played in shaping the national civil space program of middle power states, such as Canada. This dissertation proposes the application of securitization theory to better explain the relationship between the development of national civil space programs and national security during the early Space Age. It focuses on the identification, construction, and socialization of civil space activities as a security issue within the Canadian federal government and the corresponding political effect of such securitizing moves on the trajectory of Canada as a spacefaring state throughout the Cold War. The process of securitization is demonstrable through the propagation of a space policy logic that considers the framing of existential threats. The institutional interactions of these logics served to influence political decision makers and departments in supporting specific space activities over others, from scientific satellites like the first Alouettes to communication satellites and the human spaceflight program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".