From Middle Power to Peacebuilder: The Use of the Canadian Forces in Modern Canadian Foreign Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, Canadian foreign policy was committed to maintaining a middle ground between large and minor powers. Canada dedicated itself to ensuring its national security and participated heavily in international institutions to do so. Canadian Forces' participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan since 2001 may prove that the ideas of middlepowermanship and peacekeeping have been replaced as the dominant Canadian military strategies in favor of peacebuilding. As the timeline for Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan approaches, it is time to determine how successful the shift in Canadian military practice has been and what its consequences may be for Canada on the international stage. By examining Canada's traditional role as a middle power and comparing that role with Canada's modern counterinsurgency strategy, we argue that, until the Canadian Forces are given the adequate tools, Canadian military policy should adhere to the traditional peacekeeping model and not be overly eager to erode national military power.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".