MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321010771 · doi:10.1177/0020702015619570

Does standing up for sovereignty pay off politically? Arctic military announcements and governing party support in Canada from 2006 to 2014

2015· article· en· W2321010771 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathieu Landriault, Paul Minard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyOpinion pollPopulationPoliticsPolitical sciencePublic opinionArcticPolitical economyLawPublic administrationEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The defence of Arctic sovereignty has gathered high levels of support from the Canadian population in the past 40 years. However, the relationship between public opinion and decision makers is more ambiguous, in particular that between decisions taken by the governing party and an effect in the general population. This is especially true for foreign policy issues. Hence, this article offers a test to assess whether standing up for Arctic sovereignty translates into concrete political gains for the governing party. We gathered federal party support levels reported in 859 opinion polls conducted from 2006 to 2014 in Canada. By focusing on sovereignty operations held by National Defence Operations NUNALIVUT and NANOOK and aggregating poll results into a “poll of polls,” we found that standing up for Arctic sovereignty is politically profitable in certain circumstances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207