MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034910098 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2006.9673420

UN security council reform and Canadian foreign policy: Then and now

2006· article· en· W2034910098 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Chapnick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forces College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVetoCompromiseNegotiationPolitical sciencePosition (finance)Government (linguistics)Security councilPublic administrationForeign policyNational securityPolitical economyLawPoliticsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations came into existence in 1945, thanks largely to a compromise among the Great Powers. They agreed to participate in the new organization in exchange for a permanent right to a veto at the Security Council. In 1945, Canada supported their position. It understood that without them, the United Nations would not survive. Eventually, the Canadian government diverted its best personnel to socio‐economic negotiations where they could, and did, have a significant impact. Sixty years later, prominent Canadians have erred in becoming staunch proponents of Security Council reform. The Great Powers will never accept challenges to their exclusive position, and these negotiations have diverted Canadian diplomats from aspects of the UN on which they can make a real difference.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0180.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Foreign Policy JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207