MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023870172 · doi:10.3138/utq.78.2.709

Responsibility, Nostalgia, and the Mythology of Canada as a Peacekeeper

2009· article· en· W2023870172 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Jefferess

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyPeacekeepingEthosPoliticsLawNarrativeMemoirPolitical scienceThe ImaginarySign (mathematics)SociologyHistoryLiteratureArtClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article critically examines three examples of the way in which peacekeeping functions as a mythological sign within the Canadian national imaginary, connoting a distinctly Canadian political ethos and ethics: the 1994 documentary Peacekeeper at War; the image “Remembrance and Peacekeeping” on the ten-dollar bill; and Lloyd Axworthy's 2003 political memoir Navigating a New World. The author argues that these representations of Canada's peacekeeper mythology reflect a nostalgic hunger for national distinction. As such, historical policies and initiatives such as Canada's contribution to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, its military intervention and abuses in Somalia in 1993, and the Canadian mission in Afghanistan's Kandahar province are produced within the narrative of peacekeeping as either acts of responsible action (i.e., bringing peace to the Other) or aberrations in an otherwise continuous narrative of Canada's benevolent action in the world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0350.084
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207