MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973632210 · doi:10.7202/006659ar

La politique étrangère du Canada après le 11 septembre

2003· article· fr· W1973632210 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew F. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous tentons ici de tirer quelques conclusions préliminaires à propos de la politique étrangère du Canada depuis les événements du 11 septembre 2001. Nous affirmons que la caractéristique distinctive de cette crise fut la concrétisation de l’éloignement des priorités apportées par la doctrine axworthienne‚ fondée sur la sécurité humaine et les partenariats d’États adhérant aux mêmes valeurs. L’accent fut plutôt mis sur « l’enjeu principal » qu’est la relation bilatérale canado-américaine. D’une part, le Premier ministre et ses conseillers ont démontré, en surface, une ambivalence calculée à l’égard de la gestion des relations canado-américaines. Mais en substance, le principal avocat de « l’enjeu principal » (John Manley) définissait la problématique frontalière en termes d’intérêts canadiens et non nord-américains : on refusait de parler de la frontière en termes de périmètre et on a mis l’accent sur des mesures progressives et technologiques avec la notion de la « frontière intelligente ». Les événements subséquents ont aussi eu tendance à confirmer la quête d’un équilibre entre un bilatéralisme concentré et un multilatéralisme diffus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationales→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→