The Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence (PJBD): an examination of its advice outcomes legacy, 1940-2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD) was created on 18 August 1940 via the Ogdensburg Agreement, a one-page joint press release issued by Mackenzie King and Franklin Roosevelt. The impetus for the Agreement was the extreme sense of urgency to defend North America given World War II. The PJBD is, in theory, the most important advice provider on North American defence issues to the Canadian Prime Minister and American President. In reality, it has sustained little academic attention, government records are difficult to attain, and given its broad mandate of providing advice on the political and economic consequences of any defence and security issue in “the north half of the western hemisphere,” its infrequent use is perplexing. This is the first study on the PJBD since 1969 and serves as a one-stop-shop for future scholars and policymakers that analyses the PJBD from creation to 2023. To evaluate the PJBD’s decision making role over time and to glean some lessons learned, this thesis has compiled the Board’s record of activity previously scattered throughout secondary literature into a chronography (1927-1945, 1946-1991, 1992-2023) – reflecting geopolitical eras and the peaks and valleys of attention given to continental defence by senior decision-makers. Renewed Great Power Competition between the United States, Russia, and China demands further integration of the Canada-United States defence relationship. Ultimately, this research concludes that the flexible mandate of this secret advisory board and mix of civilian and military representatives provides a forum that encourages frank conversations in private, which is especially useful in an era of hyper-partisanship. As well, as problems and solutions become more technically complicated and require a myriad of agencies to cooperate, the PJBD facilitates a better understanding of the positions and concerns of binational partners. Nevertheless, there are challenges to the PJBD which are highlighted and policy advice is provided for the PJBD’s next iteration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".