MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2019969495 · doi:10.1353/cpp.2011.0030

Architects and Innovators: Building the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909–2009 , and: Canada among Nations 2008: 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy (review)

2011· article· en· W2019969495 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kevin Spooner

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForeign policyBureaucracyQueen (butterfly)International relationsPolitical scienceCentennialPublic administrationEconomic historyManagementPoliticsLawHistoryEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Architects and Innovators: Building the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909–2009, and: Canada among Nations 2008: 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy Kevin A. Spooner Architects and Innovators: Building the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909–2009 edited by Greg Donaghy and Kim Richard Nossal. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009, 318 pp. Cloth $95.00, Paper $39.95. Canada among Nations 2008: 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy edited by Robert Bothwell and Jean Daudelin. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009, 400 pp. Cloth $95.00, Paper $32.95. Anniversaries are opportunities to reflect and assess. For Canadian foreign policy, 2009 was just such an occasion. In June that year, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) marked its centennial—an event that proved especially introspective. The evidence of a century of change is obvious even in the differences in name, size, and scope of the bureaucracy charged with managing Canada’s international presence. The Department of External Affairs, as it was known in 1909, was a slight office above a Bank Street barbershop, staffed by a handful of civil servants. Today, Canada’s foreign policy bureaucracy occupies the imposing Pearson edifice on Sussex Drive and consists of thousands of employees, with many deployed to one of dozens of diplomatic missions Canada maintains throughout the world. Such a dramatic evolution clearly suggests much has changed in how Canada interacts with the world, but just as interesting may be the continuities in the nature and [End Page 429] substance of Canadian foreign policy for the past hundred years. Two books have taken on the ambitious task of centennial assessment. Greg Donaghy and Kim Richard Nossal have edited a collection of essays, Architects and Innovators: Building the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 1909–2009, while the 2008 installment of the Canada among Nations series, 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy, is edited by Robert Bothwell and Jean Daudelin. Together, these works represent more than 700 pages and 30 essays. In this limited space, it is clearly impossible to speak to every contribution; instead, I will address a few broad themes the authors raise. The first conclusion to be drawn from these collections is that individuals do matter to Canadian foreign policy. This maxim may hold more truth for the past than the present, but what emerges in these pages is a picture of policy inspired and shaped by bureaucrats and politicians alike. Architects and Innovators, in its very organization, emphasizes this point. The essays are presented in five sections, proceeding chronologically from the earliest days of the Department of External Affairs and the interwar years to the late twentieth century, stopping along the way to examine the earliest missions abroad, the dynamic period of post-WWII international institution building, and the particular messiness and complexities faced in the 1960s. The authors clearly ground their essays in the lived experiences and contributions of key individuals, but this is not to suggest that structural determinants in foreign policy are ignored. In his concluding essay, J.H. Taylor cautions, “We may be lead by the most charismatic politician since Pierre Trudeau, or the least since Mackenzie King, but when we wake up in the morning, Canada will still be next door to the United States” (p. 292). Yet, Taylor quite correctly asserts that how this relationship is managed can very much depend on the skills and personalities of the very people who shape and implement Canada’s foreign policy. In the history of the Department of External Affairs, its two principal and earliest architects deserve special mention. The two men could not have been more different. Carman Miller’s portrait of Sir Joseph Pope, the first Under-Secretary, as the embodiment of Tory aristocratic internationalism stands in stark contrast with Norman Hillmer’s presentation of O.D. Skelton, Pope’s successor in 1925 (Architects and Innovators). Both men proved to be able advisors to their respective prime ministers, though Pope’s views mattered much less after Robert Borden came to power. Skelton was indispensable to both Liberal and Conservative governments, and he had little respect for Pope...

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,136
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,340

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,014
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,257
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Public PolicyMême sujetCanadian Policy and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207