Defence Science and Technology Strategy. Science and Technology for a Secure Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to a complex set of factors, nations and societies in the 21st century are undergoing rapid change As a result, new defence and national security challenges have arisen. In response to these challenges, the Canadian Forces are undergoing transformation Science and Technology (S&T) can effectively support this transformation by contributing directly to the advancement of Canadian military capabilities. It enables superior situational awareness and decisive engagement across the increasingly complex spectrum of operations demanded of the Canadian Forces at home and abroad. The department's strong but selective defence S&T capability is essential to provide smart buyer and smart user advice, to share the burden of technology development with our allies, to avoid strategic surprise, to challenge existing doctrine and training, to envision new concepts and doctrine, to develop and sustain essential military capabilities, weapon systems and support infrastructure, and to deliver these capabilities to the end-user - the Canadian Forces. However, to fully realize this potential requires the ability to rapidly identify and adapt to new opportunities presented by S&T, to effectively coordinate the efforts of the many players across the defence institution, to build an enduring knowledge base covering key domains of S&T and to apply this knowledge across the full spectrum of defence activities. The effective direction, delivery and exploitation of the departmental investment in S&T requires a team effort across the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces that is appropriately linked to other government departments, our allies, industry and academia. Equally important is that S&T providers and S&T consumers work together to harness the full potential of S&T to impact on Canada's defence and security priorities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it