MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1693735194

Canada’s Tous Azimuts Arctic Foreign Policy

2011· article· en· W1693735194 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joël Plouffe

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyArcticGeopoliticsCircumpolar starIndigenousPolitical scienceTourismGovernment (linguistics)CredibilityPower (physics)NarrativeDiplomacyPublic administrationEconomyLawEconomicsPoliticsOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through visits across the Circumpolar and other non-Arctic states, Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, embarked on an international crusade in recent years to promote Canada as an Power. With anticipated increased human activities throughout the Arctic, Ottawa's discourse for the region is locked in a traditional narrative shaped by a belief that it has to promote Canadian territorial integrity in its Far North. This approach certainly supports a very monolithic nationalistic view of Arctic geopolitics for Canadians. In an emerging new North with multiple actors and stakeholders (non-Arctic states, international organizations, Indigenous partners, tourism, fishing, traditional security concerns, and oil & gas exploration and investments), where is Canada going? This article looks at Canada's current foreign policy discourse when dealing with the Arctic. It argues that the policy objectives put forward under the Harper government produce a tous azimuts self-assertive foreign policy discourse driven by undefined and uncalculated strategic outcomes. Therefore, it is advanced that Canada's lack of vision on global Arctic affairs beyond its territory could potentially undermine Ottawa's credibility as a multilateralist.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthern reviewSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207