MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W750629619

'SECURING' THE HOMELAND? A COMPARISON OF CANADIAN AND AMERICAN HOMELAND SECURITY POLICY IN THE POST-9/11 PERIOD

2013· dissertation· en· W750629619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara K. McGuire

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomeland securityHomelandPeriod (music)Security studiesPolitical scienceComputer securityPublic administrationComputer scienceLawPhysicsTerrorismPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the post-9/11 period, the United States can be seen to have securitized its approach to homeland security policy. Canada did not follow suit. Instead, the Canadian state sought to respond to American securitization initiatives in order to protect its own state interests. An in-depth examination of securitization theory demonstrates that this theoretical construct has been re-interpreted by scholars and adapted to various research agendas. This dissertation differentiates amongst three variants of securitization theory: philosophical, sociological, and post-structural. Common to these competing variants of securitization theory was the finding that the role of the audience had remained vague, hindering the use of this theoretical model for examining the policy creation process. Focusing on the philosophical variant of securitization theory, as originally articulated by the Copenhagen School, this dissertation re-evaluates the role of the audience while examining the ways in which the American approach to homeland security was securitized in the new security environment that emerged following 9/11, as well as Canada’s response to this securitization. This project divides the audience into two separate groups, made up of three components. The elite audience, which is comprised of members of the state policy elite, and the media first determine whether or not an issue poses an existential threat to the security of the state. The populist audience - the state’s public - then determines for itself whether or not it accepts the existential nature of the threat. This division of the audience into two separate groups allows for a clearer understanding of whether or not a given issue has been successfully securitized. In the post-9/11 period, the American audience groups willingly accepted that the threat of terrorism posed an existential threat to the state. The Canadian audience groups, prompted by their own authorized speakers of security, did not recognize terrorism as posing an existential threat to the Canadian states. Ultimately, an examination of the audience groups in these two states demonstrates the utility of the philosophical variant of securitization theory for evaluating states’ responses to security threats.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0280.014
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207