Australia, Canada, and the (Re)Construction of a US-Led Global Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of a collaborative project on the meaning and legacy of a cultural construction commonly called ‘the West,’ and specifically its key Anglo-American dimension, this paper provides a comparative examination of two key bilateral relationships at the core of that construction: US-Canada and US-Australia. In building relationships with Canada and Australia, the United States has dealt with two quite distinct national experiments in either assimilating or accommodating non-Anglo cultures—indigenous peoples in both cases and the descendants of early French settlers in the Canadian case. In theoretical terms, we argue that bilateral relations with the United States, moreover, are evolving in ways that strain concepts like sensitivity-interdependence and vulnerability-interdependence. Viewed over a long period of time, Canada and Australia are less sensitive and less vulnerable vis-a-vis the United States than they have been to their own internal cultural challenges. Their deepening interaction with the United States, and the liberal enlightenment project it has long symbolized, has been more about the reconstitution of their own identities than about any policy implications. The concept of complex sovereignty and a departure from a strictly rationalist analysis evoke the fundamental political implication of that interaction in the contemporary environment. Larger systemic lessons are suggested by the essentially pluralist practices, including open-ended negotiation, through which unique cultures (re)construct their identities and integrate themselves at the centre of what was once called the Anglo-American world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".