Canadian Foreign Policy: A Linguistically Divided Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This study analyses the French-language scholars' place in Canadian foreign policy. More precisely, it measures and compares their productions in French and in English (output) and the citations to this output (impact) in works by English-language scholars. The output is measured using theCanadian Foreign Relations Index. Then a representative sample of bibliographies taken from books and articles written by English-language scholars and published between 1997 and 2007 is analyzed. Various conclusions on the place of French and French-language scholars in the field are drawn from these data, including their small contribution to Canadian foreign policy and the absence of citations to works in French by English-language scholars. Political implications of the results are discussed. Résumé.Cette analyse examine la place des chercheurs francophones dans l'étude de la politique étrangère canadienne. Plus précisément, elle mesure et compare leurs publications en français et en anglais (la production) et les citations tirées de cette production (l'incidence) que l'on retrouve dans les travaux des chercheurs anglophones. La production est mesurée à l'aide duCanadian Foreign Relations Index. Puis un échantillon représentatif de bibliographies de travaux anglophones publiés entre 1997 et 2007 est analysé. Ces données permettent de tirer diverses conclusions sur la place du français et des chercheurs francophones dans ce champ d'étude. Il apparait, notamment, que la contribution des francophones au domaine de la politique étrangère canadienne est réduite et que les chercheurs anglophones ne citent pratiquement jamais les travaux en français. Les auteurs dégagent, en conclusion, les conséquences politiques de ces résultats.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".