Just between Friends: Bilateral Cooperation and Bounded Sovereignty in the “Global War on Terror”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “Global War on Terror,” led by the United States, emphasizes the role of international alliances in tackling terrorist threats. By their very nature, international counterterrorism efforts challenge state sovereignty by requiring changes to both foreign and domestic policies. This, in turn, creates complex sovereignty issues and raises some interesting questions for closer examination. How has cooperation in counterterrorism altered the perceptions and behavior of allies of the United States? Has the post‐9/11 security environment constrained the sovereignty of other nations? This article explores these questions in the context of Canada's cooperation with the United States. The study argues that Canada's sovereignty has been bounded, but not determined, by U.S. demands. Examining the relationship between the United States and Canada can help us understand both the limitations and the continuing relevance of the traditional concepts of power, sovereignty, and interdependence in international relations. La “Guerra Global contra el Terrorismo,” encabezada por los Estados Unidos, enfatiza el rol de las alianzas internacionales para afrontar las amenazas terroristas. Por su propia naturaleza, las acciones contra el terrorismo ponen a prueba la soberanía de los estados al requerir cambios tanto en su política exterior como en la interna. Esto, a su vez, genera complejos problemas de soberanía y crea algunas preguntas interesantes para ser examinadas. ¿Cómo ha alterado la cooperación contra el terrorismo la percepción y el comportamiento de los aliadosde Estados Unidos? ¿Ha restringido la soberanía de otras naciones el ambiente de seguridad posterior a 11/9? Este artículo explora estas cuestiones en el contexto de la cooperación Canadiense con los Estados Unidos. El estudio argumenta que la soberanía Canadiense ha sido limitada, pero no determinada, por las demandas estadounidenses. Examinar la relación entre los Estados Unidos y Canadá puede ayudarnos a comprender tanto las limitaciones y la continua relevancia de las concepciones tradicionales de poder, soberanía, e interdependencia en las relaciones internacionales.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".