The Canada‐US border and culture: How to ensure Canadian cultural sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Present means of communication, emerging technologies, and the specifics of cultural goods and services tend to confer on the Canada‐US border a virtual character. Such technological developments, increasing economic continentalism, and the application of existing international trade rules, all combine to make more problematic the preservation of a distinctive Canadian culture. What is at stake is the maintenance of a distinctive political community on the North American continent. A fundamental challenge is to preserve Canadian cultural sovereignty, understood as the ability to promote cultural industries. An exemption of culture from the purview of the North American free trade regime has proved inadequate. Canada is ever more dependent on the United States which has used its leverage to oppose cultural policies. American interests have also been reflected in multilateral trade provisions that do not allow for exceptions in favour of national cultural policies. Rather than the exclusion of culture from international economic regimes, what are required are compromises that would ensure the conditions for effective cultural policies. The instruments of Canada's cultural policy may have to be revised accordingly. As the cultural community has tended to be inward looking and to disregard the overall imperatives of Canadian foreign policy, a further challenge in terms of policy setting is to ensure a better coordination of the views of the cultural and diplomatic communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".