Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws on findings from research on the Canadian-American border led by the Policy Research Initiative (PRI) since 2004 and on the recent PRI survey of Canadian-American leaders, as well as on the author’s fieldwork on multilevel governance issues arising from the emerging cross-border regions in Europe and North America. Relying on four analytical lenses—the economy, local and central politics and policies, and local cultures—this paper examines how emerging cross-border regions, and particularly the Cascadia region, are changing Canadian-American relations. Specific attention is given to the varied forms of co-operation across policy fields in order to detail (1) the general and specialized and (2) the formal and informal relations and (3) the emerging border regions. This paper underlines the importance of understanding cross-border relations at the sub-national level in order to understand Canada-U.S. relations. The overall argument is that the appearance of cross-border regions indicates a progressive emergence of policy parallelism in a multitude of policy arenas, particularly, a specifically North American form of integration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".