MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318770874 · doi:10.1177/002070201006500117

Review: An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada? <i>Challenges and Choices for the Future</i>

2010· article· en· W2318770874 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Touhey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooSt. Jerome's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyPolitical scienceRegional scienceInternational tradeEconomicsSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AN INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY FOR CANADA? Challenges Choices for Future Brian Bow Patrick Lennox, editors Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. 248Pp7 $24.95 PaPer ISBN 978-0-8020-9634-0John English's biography of Pierre Trudeau recounts a White House discussion following prime minister's 1971 visit to Washington. We understand Canada has its own right to its destiny, Richard Nixon told his advisors, and Canadian politician could survive without that ideology. The remark came at a moment when relatively easy days of Canada-US relations were a faded dream. Canadian nationalists were alarmed at rising level of American foreign direct investment in Canada's economy. Public opinion towards US, which was in thick ofthe Vietnam War, was similarly negative. Reflecting these sentiments, political scientist Stephen Clarkson published a collection of essays entitled An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada? The contributors - a range of academics former policymakers - reassessed traditional tenets of Canadian explored whether Ottawa had means to conduct a foreign policy that would be both independent from Washington a break from diplomacy that had guided bilateral relations since 1945. Clarkson called for a more robust autonomous approach to conduct of Canadian foreign relations. Forty years later, political scientists Brian Bow Patrick Lennox have assembled a new generation of scholars - all political scientists, save one - to revisit issues that inspired Clarkson's work. The new volume considers question of Canadian foreign policy in an era of unparalleled American power (xvi) .Bow's Lennox's introduction nicely describes context of Clarkson's collection posits that there are numerous parallels between 1968 2008. There are, however, some early factual errors. Did [m]ost Canadians really have no reservations about Canada's dependence on Britain in first half ofthe twentieth century (9)? Such a claim is ignores sentiments of majority of Quebeckers. also overlooks both small but prominent group of isolationists in Department of External Affairs, including O. D. Skelton, as well as nationalist sympathies of some prominent Liberals members of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Further, Gordon commission study on Canadian economy appeared in 1958, not 1968, contractual link was not with Europe but rather European Economic Community (9-10). These are important distinctions in a study of Canadian foreign policy. Lastly, claim that the current Conservative government of Stephen Harper seems to have moved away from Chretien-era focus on trade with China is an early indication that this work already risks becoming dated (10).The collection of 10 essays is divided into five thematic parts. In part one, lone historian, Adam Chapnick, provides a vital examination of evolving independence that sparked original volume. He is sharply persuasively critical of a debate that created a binary misleading analytical framework that gives too much attention to Canada's relationship with US. He bemoans fact that this paradigm-especially its simple focus on value of quiet meaning of Canadian foreign policy - has dominated discussion of Canadian foreign policy over last 40 years (36).Part two examines how Ottawa has managed relations with Washington. Brian Bow evaluates suggestion that Canadian foreign policy has shifted closer to that of US out of fear that individual high-level bilateral disputes may elicit American retaliation against an independent Canadian stance. It is striking how little solid [archival] evidence there is of any clearcut retaliation over last sixty years, Bow concludes (67). That said, he suggests that grudge linkages between presidents prime ministers have occasionally affected handling of disputes, citing tense relationship between Diefenbaker Kennedy (74). …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207