A Study on Canada’s Human Security Policy : International Contributions, Strategies and Domestic Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the experience of Canada in mainstreaming human security concept. It was not a smooth and easy journey for Canada accepting the human security concept and applying it to her foreign policy. Since the inception of the concept by foreign policy circle there was an intense debate whether the concept should be the major principle of Canada’s foreign policy. Internationally, human security policy faced lukewarm responses from international community. Canada needed to have sophisticated strategies to mainstream this new concept. The aim of this paper is to show the importance of careful strategies in promoting new concept as a policy guideline and the role of domestic institutions in that task. In terms of strategies, Canada has promoted human security agenda through multilateral framework. Although U.N. has been a favorite multilateral platform Canada often acted outside existing multilateral fora. Norm making and creating international network with like-minded countries were also major strategies of Canada as shown in landmine ban campaign case in promoting human security agenda. Finally, the partnership with NGO is the most striking feature of Canadian human security policy. Domestic institutions have been instrumental to mainstream human security policy. DFAIT has been a major organizational platform for promoting human security. Other government organizations such as CIDA also played important roles. Also, CCHS as research network funded by DFAIT, has contributed to facilitate the exchange of information on human security issue and to help build a human security community in Canada and internationally.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".