Globalisation et culture: Le cas de Canada et d’Etats-Unis d’Amérique (Globalization and Culture: The Case of Canada and the United States)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avec une culture politique liberale qui se caracterise par un gouvernement limite, l’internationalisme et une societe ouverte, le Canada se situe quelque part entre la France et les Etats-Unis dans son degre de protectionnisme culturel et d’intensite globale de la politique culturelle. Les Etats-Unis peuvent se permettre d'avoir une «politique culturelle des portes ouvertes» parce qu'ils ont peu a craindre de la concurrence etrangere. Pour le Canada, cependant, la culture de libre-echange fait surgir le spectre de l’incapacite de se proteger contre les forces de l'annexion culturelle americaine. Cet article enquete le debat sur l'imperialisme culturel americain et les preoccupations du Canada pour sa souverainete culturelle avec une reference particuliere aux accords de commerce international de la derniere decennie.With a liberal political culture that is characterized by limited government, internationalism and an open society, Canada stands somewhere between France and the United States in its degree of cultural protectionism and overall intensity of cultural politics. The United States, of course, is the great cultural exception with a regnant popular culture that is able to indemnify its production costs over a populous and prosperous society which is largely immune to cultural expressions that do not project an American sensibility. In effect, the United States can afford to have a “cultural open-door policy” because it has little to fear from foreign competition. For Canada, however, cultural free-trade raises the specter of standing unprotected against the forces of American cultural annexation. This discussion will survey the debate over U.S. cultural imperialism and Canadian concerns for its cultural sovereignty with particular reference to the international trade agreements of the past decade.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".