Moving beyond reflection and discussion: the case for Canada to craft a national security strategy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From post-World War II to 9/11, the government and people of Canada have been content with defining the country's national security through a healthy economy and the protection of societal values. Historical tendencies suggest Canada has perceived few, if any, existential threats and has rested on its geo-strategic position as a means unto itself of providing security. Moreover, Canadian strategic culture has been heavily influenced by the United States, guiding national security interests through an opportunistic approach. But no longer; the Government of Canada (GoC) stated it will not be a "client-state" within the international order; rather, the GoC seeks to positively shape it. In June 2017, the state clearly articulated its national security objectives and its desire to uphold a rules-based international order. Since that time however, there has been no next step to achieve Canada's stated policy objectives. This paper engages the reader in understanding the vital role a national security strategy plays in the policy-strategy relationship, both in theory and practice, as a tool to centrally manage all instruments of national power in the pursuit of Canada's interests. Moreover, through an examination of the global security environment, the application of power and the conceptual approaches a state may take to national security strategy formulation, this paper demonstrates the relevance and value a national security strategy could bring to Canada's national security framework. The GoC has moved beyond The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent's call for reflection and discussion on matters of national interests. Strategies are not born of "immaculate conception." A positive change is required in Canada's national security framework; the government and citizens of Canada would benefit from the production of a Canadian national security strategy.
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 | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.083 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".