MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161858842 · doi:10.82308/55547

Securitization of the Canadian Arctic: A Path Dependant Analysis

2025· dissertation· en· W7161858842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andre Labossiere

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecuritizationNational securityGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsSecurity policyArcticNexus (standard)Security interest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis applies the lens of securitization theory to a path dependence model to study changes in Canada’s Arctic policies. Recent policies present a puzzle that begins with the Harper government’s decision to securitize the Arctic as a hard security issue and their subsequent inclusion of non-traditional security concerns and concludes with a pivot back to hard security later under the Trudeau government. Harper’s securitization is argued as an attempt to break a pattern of military inaction in the region by exaggerating an existential threat and proposing a military-led solution. Limited buy-in from key stakeholders like National Defence led to an new environment where the Arctic carries more political capital thanks to securitization, but the military is resigned to a support role in favour of emphasizing human and environmental security concerns in the North. The recent rise of China as a circumpolar actor and hostilities with Russia present a critical juncture where the Trudeau government and National Defence have reverted to a policy that re-emphasizes the need for military action in the region to address hard security concerns

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→