Perceptions and foreign policy: A comparative study of Canadian and American policy toward Cuba
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the US have very different approaches toward Fidel Castro's Cuba. The American isolationist approach stands in sharp contrast to Canada's policy of constructive engagement. The author argues that these differences result from divergent perceptions rooted in the identities of the two states. By examining two post‐Cold War issues that captured the attention of the public and officials in the US and Canada, this article illustrates how the different identities and their associated ideas and values translate into unique perceptions, distinct norms and, thus, policies. The article demonstrates that the distinct American and Canadian perceptions of, and reactions to, the Brothers to the Rescue shoot‐down in 1996 relied on long‐held perceptions of Cuba and each country's relationship with the Caribbean state, that were, in turn, rooted in the Canadian and American identities. The author also discusses the Canadian and American responses to speculation in 2002–2003 that Castro's regime has terrorist connections are based on two particular sets of assumptions that are embedded in the two identities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it