MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152447539

Inexpensive Leadership: On Canada’s Global Normative Position and Its Potentials

2010· article· en· W2152447539 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sayed Amir Mirtaheri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeCold warConstructivism (international relations)Political sciencePosition (finance)RealismPolitical economyPower (physics)Foreign policyMulticulturalismSociologyInternational relationsEpistemologyLawEconomicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper deals with the apparent gap between Canada's considerable reservoir of international social capital on the one hand and its lack of visibility on the global stage on the other. It argues that Canada has certain advantages compared to other western powers to become a normative great power. To assume such position of (non-traditional) global leadership, however, Canada needs to break loose from lingering legacies of the Cold War and especially from middle-powerism. This can be facilitated by a departure from Cold-War Realism to post-Cold War Constructivism\Realism. The paper reviews the attempt to make the human security discourse a normative framework of Canada's foreign policy and analyzes its failure. Based on the insights provided by this analysis, the paper proposes two strategic normative discourses for a Canadian bid for global leadership. These include green lifestyle and multiculturalism. The paper also provides examples to show how the two can be put into concrete actions.

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)0.004
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207