On National Defence: A Contemporary Evaluation of the Canadian Armed Forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the contemporary history of the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) from peacekeeping to the most recent update to Canadian defence policy, highlighting their historical roles and contemporary challenges. It discusses the evolving purpose of the CAF, which has shifted from conventional defence to supporting and reinforcing a western-led international order. It explores issues such as defence spending, procurement challenges, peacekeeping endeavors, veterans’ support, diversity and inclusion within the CAF. Moreover, it explores emerging threats in cyber, space and Arctic domains, including the rise of artificial intelligence threats, and emphasises the need for Canada to adapt its defence strategies accordingly. Specific focus is given to changes in Canadian defence policy in Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) released in 2017, and Our North, Strong and Free released in 2024. Ultimately, the article offers a critical assessment of Canada’s military role in the context of evolving global challenges and societal values, highlighting the recent policy shift towards expanding national and international defence.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 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".