The Ebbs and Flows of Canada’s Public Diplomacy with a Domestic Foundation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada jumped ahead in its development of public diplomacy, that is the involvement of public opinion in foreign policy-making and conduct. Canadian studies centres around the globe have been hallmarks of Canada’s public diplomacy. The Canadian federal government also engaged domestic civil society as publics and as partners, yet this inclusive approach to public involvement at home and abroad has been scuttled. Efforts by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (now the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) to consult with civil society on foreign policy may have been trendsetting, but times have changed. This article explores the fluctuations of Canada’s public diplomacy with a domestic foundation, and thus the involvement of Canadians in reaching out to foreign peers on shared international policy concerns. After briefly discussing the concept of public diplomacy and its domestic dimension, the article analyzes how evolutions in public diplomacy reflect the Canadian government’s approach to involving Canadians in it from its beginnings, through the Liberal decade, and into the Conservative period. Finally, the Canadian government’s approach is assessed. The article finds that its high-water mark of innovation in involving publics at home and abroad occurred some time ago. Its ebbs and flows, not affected only the children of the political environment, also derive from wider developments in diplomacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".