Bibliographic record
Abstract
A country’s image is the product largely of one nation’s socially constructed perception (or misperception) of another nation. A country’s image may seem politically insignificant, but its image and associated identity are often socially meaningful and have an important impact on the overall milieu for narratives and discourses in international relations. This essay intends to make sense of Canada’s image among Chinese. It first defines the concept of “image” and specifically Canada’s image in China. Then, through examination of various aspects of image-making, such as symbolic individual figures, media venues, and popular topics, this article seeks to deconstruct this image. It argues that the Canadian image is important for Sino-Canadian relations because a country’s image and reputation are among the most valuable assets its people possess and a key component of soft power. The political weight of public image, however, is more the product of a country’s importance and less its image. For example, compared to the relatively negative public image of the United States in China, Canada’s more positive public image does not make it more important to China’s government or its people.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".