MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314337401 · doi:10.1163/1871191x-12341333

Diplomacy as Self-representation: British Columbia’s First Nations and China

2016· article· en· W2314337401 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Michel Montsion

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Hague Journal of Diplomacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiplomacyPolitical scienceIndigenousChinaInternational relationsPublic administrationNatural resourceState (computer science)Foreign policyJurisdictionGovernment (linguistics)LawPolitical economyEconomySociologyPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s recent interest and substantial investments in Canada’s natural resource sector have led some First Nations in British Columbia to undertake diplomatic activities to represent their interests to Chinese officials and investors. This article explores the interplay developing between the diplomatic activities of British Columbia’s First Nations and those of the Canadian state in the area of natural resource promotion. It does so by examining the diplomatic efforts of British Columbia’s First Nations Energy and Mining Council and the Canadian government’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China. The article argues that this interplay represents a struggle over diplomatic representation, in which British Columbia’s First Nations challenge the Canadian state’s monopoly on the representation of indigenous interests abroad, whereas the Canadian state constantly reframes indigenous perspectives on international affairs as a matter of domestic jurisdiction, in order to re-ground its control over Canadian foreign diplomatic practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Hague Journal of DiplomacySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207