It's my understanding that the close spaced canards on things like the Northrop and Soviet 3 views you showed are more for airflow control at extreme angles of attack. In effect the canards act like leading edge slots for the big main body of the aircraft and to some extent aid in pitch control. Note that both those craft use rear pitch control surfaces in conjunction with the canards. Also if you do some more research you'll find writeups on these wide body craft indicating that 50% or more of the lift comes from the body during high speed flight compared to what we consider as the wings.

Some time back I seem to recall a report about an F15 or something actually losing a wing from a mid air collision or anti aircraft fire or something like this and the pilot was able to still fly back and land the plane. Not something you could do unless the fuselage center body was providing a lot of the lift.

Meanwhile you're other canards with props are a more classic form where the forward wing is actually providing some of the lift. It's a whole different use of the surfaces compared to the military styles.

EDIT- If it helps think of the military designs as a very low aspect ratio flying wing with center body airflow control slots rather than being a true canard. Movement of the "canards" in connection with main wing rear surfaces provide more of a camber alteration for pitch control than a true difference in angle of attack changes as seen on more "normal" configuration canards. As such you can't really apply the usual design tools to determine correct center of gravity for them like you can with the more wide spaced "non overlapping" canards where the two wing surfaces are spaced apart by at least a couple of major wing chord lengths.