Provide for the Common Defense: Updating the Canada-United States Security Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time to revisit and upgrade the Canada-United States defense relationship. New threats: the Homeland Defense paradigm The Homeland Defense concept is that the United States needs to develop new defenses against threats to its own people and economy, in contradistinction to the need for force projection and pre-emptive strikes that placed the most likely conflicts and uses of U.S. military power outside our borders for most of the 20th century. In the post Cold War, the U.S. military’s advanced weaponry, tactics and sheer size are unmatched, and there are therefore few scenarios in which the United States is likely to face a large-scale attack or invasion. This has led U.S. defense planners to consider the greater likelihood of asymmetrical warfare – that is, an attack from a smaller force designed to hit at weak points in U.S. defenses and undermine American resolve. Such a “David against Goliath ” situation could take the shape of a terrorist attack on civilians or infrastructure within the United States, or against a symbolic target linked to the United States. This kind of strike, as witnessed recently in Aden against the U.S.S. Cole, can have a psychological impact on Americans that goes far beyond its military value and can be
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".