The Arctic Linked to the Emerging Dominant Ideas in Canada's Foreign and Defence Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From an international security studies perspective, this article offers a discourse analysis of Canada’s threat perceptions and security rhetoric in the Arctic between December 2005 and March 2009. It argues that since December 2005, the government of Canada has decided to securitize its political sovereignty, its northern identity, as well as its territorial integrity. The author offers a cultural explanation to these securitizations by arguing that Canada’s strategic changes in the Arctic are a lot more than just rhetoric; they seem to be linked to the emerging dominant ideas in Canada’s foreign and defence policy—hence, a phasing out of Canada’s traditional internationalism and middle power status and a phasing in of the ideas tied to continentalism and to major power status. After linking the Arctic to Canada’s place and role in the world, the author discusses the possible negative and positive effects of these processes of securitization. He then concludes the article by offering two specific recommendations to better Canada’s role in the Circumpolar World.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".