Power, Identity, and Special Relationships: The US-Canada and US-Mexico Relationships in Historical and Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the United States relate to the West? We tend, in the IR literature, to think about it in terms of the “ordering” of the West: Is it a civilization, an empire, a strategic bargain, a security community, or something else? Will the West hold together or break apart, and — putting the same question in a different form — can the United States continue to exercise leadership of the West? Much of our thinking about these questions is based on the assumptions that there is a coherent, singular West, and that the US relates to that western community in a coherent, singular way. But as Peter Katzenstein has argued, the West is both plural and pluralist, and the United States “fits” into the West in a variety of different ways, revealing many different sides of itself in the process. We begin here with the expectation that closer, comparative examination of the way that the US relates to specific partners can help us to untangle some of these complexities and contradictions.
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 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".