Beyond the Maginot Line: The Real Borders of Freedom and Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MY purpose in this presentation is not to bring new expertise to the challenges of border management.There are others here who, on this panel and others, can add immeasurably more to that aspect of our discussions.I intend, instead to suggest that in spite of the outstanding and hard nitty-gritty work done on border management by both governments, and by the private sectorreflecting extraordinary accomplishment in a relatively brief time frame, or, perhaps because of all that has been accomplished, it is time to think hard about whether we are understanding the border issue in its full dimension.I understand and accept that the Border has become a key measure of the battle against terrorism in both countries.Relative to what Canada's general stance should be on anti-terrorism engagement I am attracted by what Andrew Richter of University of Windsor, wrote in the recent Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy monograph entitled "Independence in an Age of Empire."In an article entitled, "The Invisible Country" Professor Richter put it this way on page 265: "In the present war on terrorism I believe that Canada should co-operate with the United States because it is the right thing to do.Canada, like the United States is a potential target of terrorists, something that the Canadian government would prefer Canadians not think about (even if terrorists have shown no similar unwillingness).Groups like Al Qaeda despise Canada almost as much as they hate the U.S. Canada stands for everything such groups abhor: free people making free choices, in a secular state where women have equal rights to men.It is time that Canada's political leaders understood that fact, and it is similarly time for Canada's citizens to realize that this is not a war of radical Islam against the U.S. It is a war that pits democratic and secular peoples against those who do everything in their power to kill them.Ca-
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".