Military against Gendarmerie: Contingency Planning for a Police-led Coup d’état to Control or Overthrow a Democratically elected Government in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Militaries and police are often key actors in attempts to seize power by coup d’état. Using a hypothetical scenario of a police-led coup d’état in Canada, this article assesses the likely military response to a gendarmerie trying to overthrow a legitimate democratic government. After reviewing the existing literature on police-led coups d’état, it explores the legal authorities and primacy of civilian control in the Canadian context, relative capabilities conferring an overwhelming advantage to the Canadian military, and a straight fight between specialised tactical units within the Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Such fictional exercises in contingency planning possess educational value for teaching military professionals about the national security challenges in domestic operations.Les forces armées et la police sont souvent des acteurs clés dans les tentatives de prise de pouvoir par coup d’état. À l’aide d’un scenario hypothétique d’un coup d’état dirigé par la police au Canada, cet article évalue la réponse militaire probable à la gendarmerie tentant de renverser un gouvernement démocratique légitime. Après avoir passé en revue la littérature existante sur les coups d’état dirigés par la police, l’article explore les autorités légales et la primauté du contrôle civil dans le contexte canadien, les capacités relatives conférant un avantage écrasant aux militaires canadiens et la lutte directe entre des unités tactiques spécialisées au sein des Forces armées canadiennes et de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada. De tels exercices fictifs de planification d’urgence ont une valeur éducative pour enseigner aux professionnels militaires les défis de la sécurité nationale dans les opérations nationales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".