MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1185352389

Hegemony in the Local Order and Accumulation in the Global: Canada and Libya

2014· preprint· en· W1185352389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seán McMahon

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlliancePoliticsHegemonyNorth Atlantic TreatyPolitical sciencePeace treatyTreatyIdeologyState (computer science)Political economyOrder (exchange)Argument (complex analysis)EconomyLawSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My paper analyzes Canadian involvement in the war on Libya in 2011. My point of departure is the question: why was Canada involved in the bombing of Libya? I quickly recognize that it is facile to argue that Canada bombed Libya simply because it is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Other NATO members, most notably Germany, did not support UN Resolution 1973 which authorized the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. Furthermore, a number of NATO members, including usually staunchly supportive Poland, refused to participate in Operation Unified Protector. In fact, only 14 of the alliance's 28 members ultimately contributed war materiel. Consequently, I pose the subsequent query: why was Canada disproportionately involved in the bombing of Libya? Canadian involvement in the war on Libya can only be properly understood by locating the policy in the politics of Fernand Braudel's structural time. My argument is that the Canadian state supported the Libya campaign, and participated as it did, in the service of global and local interests of the transnational historic bloc led by finance capital. Globally, the war facilitated accumulation on the part of this bloc by temporally displacing the ongoing crisis of surplus capital. Locally, the war on Libya supported this bloc's political project in Canada by reaffirming a neoliberal nationalist ideology. The war was against value, including people, in Libya and resistant subordinate social forces in Canada's politico-economic order, NATO's Operation Unified Protector and Canada's Operation Mobile were material attacks in Libya and techniques of social domination in Canada. I execute my argument in four stages. First, I explain my analytical apparatus. More specifically, I adumbrate the specific ideas and insights I deploy from the historical materialist tradition. Second, I demonstrate that the prevailing readings of the war on Libya, including Canada's participation in it, are, at best, analytically deficient and at worst, ahistorical and bereft of critical reflection. It must be noted that commentaries on Canadian policy vis-? -vis Libya are almost non-existent, so much of this review is cast in the broader terms of the global political-economic order. Third, I explain how the war on Libya temporally displaced the problem of surplus capital and served an ideological function in Canada. Fourth and finally, I conclude with some thoughts regarding local social implications of the Canadian involvement in the war.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0280.027
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→