MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979108160 · doi:10.1080/02722010709481855

Searching for the North in North American Foreign Policies: Canada and the United States

2007· article· en· W1979108160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas C. Nord

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceForeign policyInternational tradeEconomic historyHistoryBusinessLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada needs to bring a comprehensive northern dimension to its foreign policy. To be effective, the new policy must be an integral part of Canada's broader foreign policy, and must be reinforced by domestic policies. The Northern Dimension of Canada's Foreign Policy (2000) A northern foreign policy? We don't do north in our foreign policy-- unless you're talking about relations with the polar bears, walrus or caribou. Unattributed foreign policy advisor to President George W. Bush For many observers of Canadian-American affairs it was a bit of a surprise to find that the first problem to emerge in the bilateral relationship following the election of the new Harper government was related to the North. Rather than being a trade issue linked to softwood lumber or a border security concern tied to differing national immigration regulations, it was the question of Arctic sovereignty that was to disrupt briefly the promise of renewed positive relations between the two countries. In late January of 2006, the American ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, appeared to raise questions in a speech to a Canadian audience about Ottawa's need to exert complete control over its northern lands and waters. The newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, was forced to make a quick response, offering the opinion that Arctic sovereignty was indeed an important concern for Canadians and that it would be a foreign policy priority for his new government. He further indicated that the American ambassador might wish to refrain from making further comments on the matter (Galloway 2006). What puzzled many observers on both sides of the border concerning this brief, heated exchange was why either Canadian or American interests in the Arctic should be given such attention. Neither country had made the North an issue of prominent concern in their mutual relations for several years. Nor had either country appeared to devote much attention to the North in its overall foreign policy behavior. The idea that Canada and the United States might have different and contending approaches to their international relations in the North was a new idea to many. For those who had been carefully following the development of Canadian and American foreign policies in the North over the past several decades, however, such a sudden diplomatic outburst was not totally unexpected. The two countries did, in fact, have somewhat different visions of their roles in the North and their contributions to current circumpolar diplomacy. While there had been a good deal of common cause between Ottawa and Washington in their dealings in the North prior to the end of the Cold War, the two countries had begun to diverge in their attitudes and approaches to the region since the decline of that international system. It. might be important, some suggested, that these differences be detailed. The Nature of the Inquiry This essay discusses the problems that both Canada and the United States have faced over the past several decades in envisioning and articulating a northern dimension to their respective foreign policies. As noted above, both countries have suffered from a certain reluctance to consider the North as an important component of their foreign relations and have only belatedly begun to look at themselves as circumpolar states. Nonetheless, northern issues and concerns have become increasingly visible features of both Canada's and the United States' dealings with other members of the global community and in their relations with one another. The essay begins by providing a historical overview of the United States' and Canada's interests in the North over the past century It considers the political, economic, social, and strategic concerns that have driven each country to become involved in the region. Here, attention is focused on the evolution of their interests from exploration and establishment of sovereignty in the North to economic exploitation, strategic defense, and ultimately international cooperation. …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0440.013
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207