Canada's changing participation in international peacekeeping and peace enforcement: What, if anything, does it mean?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active engagement in United Nations peacekeeping has been widely accepted as a defining characteristic of the Canadian military role around the world. Over the past several years, Ottawa also has been a leader in ‘new diplomacy’ initiatives such as the Anti‐Personnel Landmines Ban and International Criminal Court treaties. While these appear to represent a ‘softer’ form of multilateralism, and a move away from relying on Great Power leadership, Ottawa in fact at the same time has committed more of its military assets to robust military operations, acting alongside the United States and not necessarily with the prior approval of the United Nations. This article considers whether these policy directions and commitments represent any meaningful change in the character of Canadian internationalism ‐ for example, from a moderate idealism towards an even more principled idealism (embodied in the promotion of the human security agenda) or in fact to a robust realism. It argues that most popular views of Canada's peacekeeping history have exaggerated its idealist element and understated its pragmatism; and that a modest mixture of these two elements has continued to shape Canadian foreign policy and defence policy decisions in the latter part of the 1990s and the early years of the new millennium.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".