The Canada‐U.S. border after September 11th: The politics of risk constructed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many significant changes have occurred in North American security and border management since September 11, 2001. There has been much speculation about how Canada‐U.S. relations will change, as well as the broader issue of what this means for North American regionalism economic integration and transnationalism. This chapter suggests that if we are to find the answers to these questions, we need to appreciate the context in which security, border management and transnational cooperation has evolved in North America in recent times. We also need to appreciate that the final outcome will not be solely the result of U.S. decision‐making, but will involve negotiating consensus and cooperation with its neighbors in order to manage the risks posed by closed or open borders. The way in which security risk is constructued, politicized and publicly discussed in instrumental in maintaining the border and in setting the tone for border management. So also are issues such as technological application, identity politics and historical nationalisms, institutional capacity for transnationalism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".