Sensing Common Ground? A Call for Collaboration Between the DND/CAF <i>Quantum S&T Strategy</i> and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently published strategic documents relating to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda and quantum science and technology by the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF) reveal these domains of operation have little overlap in their scope of work. Although this divide may reflect expectations, we argue that the siloing of these strategies misses important opportunities for inter- and intra-departmental collaboration on key objectives. Focusing specifically on the WPS goal of conflict prevention and two quantum sensing technology missions articulated in the DND/CAF quantum science and technology implementation plan, we illustrate creative opportunities for further coordination and collaboration between policy silos.
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 | 0.064 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".