'SECURING' THE HOMELAND? A COMPARISON OF CANADIAN AND AMERICAN HOMELAND SECURITY POLICY IN THE POST-9/11 PERIOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".