Canadian Policy Towards Bangladesh: How Does the North Look at the South?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The goal of the paper is to analyze the Canadian policy towards Bangladesh. In this paper I argue that Canadian approach towards Bangladesh was different in different phases of history. In the liberation war of Bangladesh Canada played a role that went against the interest of Bangladesh and suited with the triple alliance of the US-Pakistan and China. Against the backdrop of Cold War politics, Canadian policy demonstrated the reflection of her national interest. In the dawn of the independence of Bangladesh in the early 1970’s Canada revised its policy, immediately recognized the new nation and supported Bangladesh’s admission in to the Commonwealth, the United Nations and other international organizations. Since the threshold of Bangladesh’s journey Canada emerged as a development partner of the new nation. Apart from significant aid, Canada also provided immigration facilities to the Bangladeshis. All these are consistent with its national interest. I also focus on the Canadian concerns over the violation of human rights and poor governance that gradually eroded the image of Bangladesh among the Canadian policy makers. Finally, I suggest a way out to improve relations between the two countries of the ‘North’ and ‘South’.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".