Balancing Sovereignty and Security: US and Canadian approaches to the changing Artic defence environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balancing Sovereignty and Security: US and Canadian approaches to the changing Arctic defence environment July 2019 2080670H 17116139 36028184 Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of International Master in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies Word Count: 21,487 Supervisor: Diarmuid Torney Date of Submission: 25 July 2019 2 Abstract The motivation and primary research interest of this dissertation is to assess US and Canadian approaches to defence in the Arctic in response to the evolving security landscape and need to protect state sovereignty. The secondary research interest is to determine if the two states have become more or less favourable towards increased NATO Arctic engagement. The first section of this dissertation lays out the historical background before conducting a literature review on security issues in the Arctic. Based upon identified literature gaps, the research question of this dissertation is focussed on how the two North American Arctic states, as members of both NORAD and NATO, have responded to the changing northern polar security environment. The second section of the study critically analyses the discourse around Arctic security in defence strategies and department plans by each state's respective defence department from 2011-2019. The analysis...
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".