MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1952888851

Middlepowerism in the Post-Cold War Era: A Critique of Axworthy's Security Policy

2000· article· en· W1952888851 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mollie Royds

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyPolitical scienceDiplomacyCold warCriticismPublic administrationInternational securityState (computer science)International relationsSecurity policyTreatySecurity studiesVulnerability (computing)Political economyLawSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian foreign and security policy has traditionally been preoccupied with considerations of Canada’s dependence on, and hence vulnerability to, the international system. Middlepowerism is a pattern of behaviour that Canada has used to offset this dependence on the international system. Practitioners of Canadian foreign policy have applied middlepowerism in different ways but the concept itself has remained consistent. Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s current Minister of Foreign Affairs, has advocated a more active role for Canada in international affairs. He argues that the security landscape has changed and that ‘human security’ is the new security paradigm in which states much operate. Middlepowerism, as interpreted by Axworthy, involves participation in coalitions of ‘like-minded’ states, cooperation with non-state actors, and public diplomacy. This paper explores middlepowerism with a look at the Treaty banning Anti-Personnel land mines and Canada-NATO relations. It concludes that harsh criticism of Axworthy’s departure from traditional middlepowerism is premature, as Axworthy is limited as to what is possible by virtue of Canada’s dependence on the international system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207