MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057159029 · doi:10.1080/11926422.2004.9673359

Most safely on the fence? A round table on the possibility of a Canadian foreign policy after 9/11

2004· article· en· W2057159029 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Foreign Policy Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for International Governance InnovationUniversity of OttawaQueen's UniversityUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFence (mathematics)Political scienceTable (database)Foreign policyInternational tradeBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceLawPoliticsStructural engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The attacks of September 11, 2001, changed both the nature of world politics and how Canadians perceive their place in the world. Subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq only reinforced the sense that something of epochal significance had occurred. The organizers of the Canadian section of the International Studies Association wondered if the notion of something "Canadian" in foreign policy might no longer be relevant in a world reconfigured by the pre‐eminence of the US and its single‐minded pursuit of its war on terror. A round table was held on this question at the February 2003 meeting of the association in Portland, Oregon. This article reproduces the edited remarks that each participant presented at that time, with a second round of comments that each participant made in response to the other presentations and to subsequent questions posed by the moderator. Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont changé à la fois la nature de la politique mondiale et la vision que les Canadiens ont de leur place dans le monde. Les guerres qui ont suivi, en Afghanistan et en Irak, n'ont fait que renforcer le sentiment que quelque chose d'historique venait de se produire. Les organisateurs du chapitre canadien de l'Association des études internationales se sont demandé si le concept de "canadianité" en politique étrangère ne risquait pas de devenir obsolète dans un monde réorchestré par la prééminence des États‐Unis et leur fixation exclusive sur la "guerre contre la terreur". Une table ronde sur la question a été organisée lors de la réunion tenue en février par l'association à Portland, en Oregon. Cet article reproduit la version éditée des interventions de chaque participant ainsi que des réactions individuelles aux autres présentations et des réponses des participants aux questions posées par le modérateur. Notes Moderator Robert Wolfe is Associate Professor in the School of Policy Studies, Queen's University. Contributors are: Louis Bélanger, Directeur, Institut québecois des hautes études internationals, Université Laval; Andrew F. Cooper, Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and Associate Director of the Centre for International Governance Innovation; Claire Turenne Sjolander, Associate Professor of Political Science, Associate Dean (Academic) and Secretary, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa; and Heather A. Smith, Associate Professor and Chair of International Studies, University of Northern British Columbia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.186 · 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