MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W223520845

Canadian Politics Unplugged/Liberals at the Border: We Stand on Guard for Whom?/Canada's Military Posture: An Analysis of Recent Civilian Reports

2005· article· en· W223520845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael F. Hopkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsWonderHistoryGuard (computer science)LawMedia studiesPolitical scienceArt historySociologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E. Nicol and P. Whalley, Canadian Politics Unplugged (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2004), 150pp. $19.95. ISBN 1-55002-466-3. L. Axworthy, Liberals at the Border: We Stand on Guard for Whom? (Victoria University with University of Toronto Press, 2004), viii + 52 pp. Paper. $11.95 ISBN 0- 802085938. B. Cooper, M. Stephenson and R. Szeto, Canada's Military Posture: An analysis of recent civilian reports, Critical Issues Bulletin (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 2004). Paper. $25 per year membership. ISSN 1480-3666. 'O goody', I thought, opening the Review Editor's parcel, 'a humorous book on Canadian politics: what a good idea. A change from jokes about snow, beer, hockey and eh?' Sadly this little book is just not very funny, despite being written by the doyen of Canadian humorous writers. Nicol has won the Stephen Leacock award three times which makes me wonder whether in fact Canada can sustain only one world-famous person in each cultural category: Cardinal, Gould, Frye, Leacock, McLuhan. The targets in this resume of politics north of the 49th parallel are all easy: Preston Manning, the Federal Government, the Senate, the Lieutenant Governors, Trudeau, the hostility between eastern and western provinces and so on, but the jokes are all rather tired, delivered in folksy throwaway style which enables the reader to see the punch line well before reading it. In case we don't see it coming there is generally that thoughtful piece of Canadian punctuation: the colon: to help us. The illustrations are equally nondescript with none of the bite we associate with Canadian newspaper cartoons. I can think of only one exception: a startled figure in Victorian garb confronts graffiti proclaiming 'Vive Le River Rouge Libre' over the title 'Western Rielism', which made me smile anyway. Oh, and a rather nice slant on bilingualism and the requirement that in Quebec French signs should precede English, and predominate as in 'MC DONALD'S/McDonald's' (p. 120). But throughout the whole book a dependence on feeble puns and over laboured asides gives it the feel of a collection of after dinner anecdotes rather than the satire which the publishers praise: for $20 I would want the dinner thrown in too. And I did try: I read it four times to see if I'd missed the joke: perhaps you have to be really cold to enjoy it. Or Canadian eh? The end of Nicol's book casts a sardonic glance at 'Americanada' and the increasingly ambivalent nature of the integration of Canada within American culture, which was the theme taken up in the next book I opened: L. Axworthy, Liberals at the Border: We Stand on Guard for Whom? Just about the only thing this transcript of the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy's lecture (the sixth in the Senator Keith Dudley memorial series) has in common with the previously reviewed volume is the size and format, but they arrived together and in a way are both 'niche publications'. Axworthy has been a passionate advocate of anti-landmine legislation for many years and in this short text he addresses this issue as well as having pertinent things to say about the inadvisability of Canadian foreign policy simply following on the coat tails of America (as it formerly hung on those of Britain). …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.044
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207