Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest Adam Chapnick (bio) Steven Kendall Holloway. Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest. Broadview 2006. xii, 276. $39.95 Steven Kendall Holloway’s new textbook, Canadian Foreign Policy: Defining the National Interest, is a welcome addition to the literature on Canada’s place in the world of value to academics as well as to students of political science and history. [End Page 205] The book utilizes what Holloway terms a national interest perspective to summarize the history and evolution of Canadian external relations. Breaking from far too many analysts who use terms like national interest without providing a rigorous assessment of its meaning and implications, Holloway defines five key interests that are shared by all effective states in the international system – national security, political autonomy, national unity, economic prosperity, and a principled self-image – and then introduces historical examples to illustrate how Canadian foreign policy has been consistent with each of them since before Confederation. The analysis is theoretically informed but also written in a sufficiently accessible style to make the text viable in an introductory political science course in Canadian foreign policy. At the same time, it is comprehensive enough to justify its inclusion in an upper-level or even graduate-level course. (At the graduate level, it would likely be more helpful in a comparative manner than as a core text.) Defining the National Interest is deliberately provocative. Holloway claims that Canada is an ordinary country whose interests are no different from those of its major allies, that the decline of the state in world affairs has been profoundly exaggerated, and that it is possible for global humanitarianism and even civic nationalism to be consistent with his national interest perspective. None of these ideas are new, but the author’s balanced and comprehensive investigation of their implications is refreshing. Similarly, although his aim is to bring his national interest perspective into greater prominence in discussions of Canadian foreign policy, Holloway is not so arrogant as to think that his argument will convince his greatest critics. Rather than bullying his readers, then, he uses history to add context and perspective to a subject that is too often driven by politically motivated rhetoric. In spite of his firm beliefs, Holloway comes across as a moderate without a political agenda. The measured tone of this text should broaden the potential audience for the book considerably. Historians who teach Canadian foreign policy will likely continue to rely on Norman Hillmer and Jack Granatstein’s very good Empire to Umpire, in part because Defining the National Interest is organized in a manner that eschews straight chronology. Holloway’s concern with demonstrating how his analytical framework is useful across a variety of themes prevents him from developing the consistent story-like narrative that historians (and their students) prefer. Nevertheless, Defining the National Interest’s capsule summaries of the contemporary theoretical approaches to understanding Canada’s place in the world are excellent, as are its case studies of classical peacekeeping, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, ballistic missile defence, Afghanistan, and softwood lumber. Any one of these summaries could be integrated into a history lecture without difficulty. [End Page 206] Moreover, the clear articulation of the meaning of national interest, while certainly contestable, provides a comprehensive basis for discussion that will be meaningful to history students, regardless of their comfort level with the language of international relations theory. This achievement in itself makes this book worth owning. In conclusion, while Holloway’s approach and argument will not resonate with all readers, his text will provoke a discussion that needs to be had, making Defining the National Interest a valuable addition to the literature on Canadian foreign policy. Adam Chapnick Adam Chapnick, Department of Defense Studies, Canadian Forces College Copyright © 2009 University of Toronto Press Incorporated
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».