North American Technology and Industrial Base Organization (NATIBO) Calendar Year 2006 Annual Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the 1985 Shamrock Summit, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, and Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, pledged to work to reduce barriers and to stimulate the two-way flow of defense goods, establish a free exchange of technology, knowledge, and skill involved in defense production. This led to the establishment of the NATIBO Charter signed by the two Nations' Defense Departments on March 23, 1987. At that time the NATIBO focused on the combined capacity and capability of the defense industrial bases of the U.S. and Canada to jointly support military requirements. in 1992, the Organization determined it needed to review its objectives and explore new roles and initiatives to respond to the challenges of the 1990s. This change was reflected in more focus on technology vice industrial capacity issues. The 21st Century has presented new challenges for the national and economic security needs of the U.S. and Canada. In 2006, NATIBO responded by expanding the areas it supports beyond traditional industrial base/preparedness concerns to include leveraging technology. This includes the assessing of infrastructure to develop and transition new military technology, as well as the ability to transfer technology between civilian and military applications and develop manufacturing technologies to support military transformation production strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".