MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064512104 · doi:10.1177/0020702014527893

The transition in Canadian foreign policy through an English School lens

2014· article· en· W2064512104 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Keating

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyConstructivePremiseInternational relationsPolitical sciencePoliticsInterpretation (philosophy)SociologyPolitical economyPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a discussion of English School approaches to international politics, Barry Buzan suggests that one should look at “how particular states and peoples encounter and adapt to international society.” This essay examines how Canadian governments through their foreign policy practices have encountered and adapted to international society. It starts from a premise that Canadian foreign policy has been integrally linked with international society since the early part of the twentieth century and that international society has done much to influence Canadian foreign policy practice through the years. In turn, this paper discusses how Canadian foreign policy, at times in a very direct and conscientious manner, contributed to the development of international society and how that contribution has changed over time. Finally, this essay argues that an English School lens can provide a constructive interpretation of the significant transition that has occurred in Canadian foreign policy over the past two decades.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0260.021
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207