Driven by technology: the rise and protracted decline of US–Canada North American defense organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United States–Canada defense cooperation has been driven by successive military technological advances in strategic nuclear air and naval forces and conventional threats. This mutually beneficial cooperation peaked at the height of the Cold War in the late 1950s and early sixties following the establishment of the binational North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958. There would be no overarching bilateral defense organizations. Indeed, during the subsequent decades, the integration of United States strategic defense collaboration in the face of threats experienced an uneven yet decidedly diminished evolution, notwithstanding the continued existence of external threats to the continent. Not even the establishment by Washington of the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) in 2003 and the creation by Ottawa of Canada Command in 2006 to meet the post-9/11 terrorist challenges to homeland security and defense would halt the decline in formal institutional bilateral, continental defense integration. Both governments took unilateral measures to ensure the protection of their homelands from a new external threat. From a military-technological standpoint, the strategic defensive value of Canadian air and maritime space to the United States has progressively declined. This, along with America's underlying preference to preserve a core independent military posture and Canadian sovereignty sensitivities, has meant that while the defense of the continent against external threats has been a close and friendly bilateral undertaking, it has been one that has been accompanied by an ever-declining need for organizational military integration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".