Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the United States share a close alliance, a long border, and democratic values, but the two countries do not always have the same views on regional and global security challenges. A group of Canadian and American scholars and practitioners met at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire on 23-24 September 2011 to compare views on four key issues: Is the global institutional order equipped to meet today's threats? Are regional security institutions improving North American security? How different are Canadian and American grand strategies? And by which mechanisms should security threats be assessed and addressed?The organizers of the conference were the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth; the McGiIl- Universite de Montreal Centre for International Peace and Security Studies; and the Centre for International and Defence Policy, Queen's University with support from the chair in American politicai and economie studies at the Universite de Montreal; the Social Science and Humanities Council of Canada; Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la societe et la culture; and the embassy of Canada in the United States.The papers presented led to a lively and spirited exchange of views on alliance burden- sharing, economic and security integration, cooperation in protecting human rights, security cooperation and peacemaking, China and the challenge of rising powers, and issues of status in international relations. Participants agreed that the international system is being tested by the world economic and financial downturn, continuing challenges in the Middle East and Iran, the rise of China, and major human rights violations by state actors. While questions about the continued leadership role of the US in the international system were raised, most felt that its role will continue and that the international system will evolve to meet the new challenges. The US, however, will seek more burden- sharing and be very judicious about new commitments abroad. Although the US and Canada may disagree on some issues such as the role of the UN and international human rights treaties, common interests bind us, as exemplified by the current focus on perimeter security.This symposium presents a sample of brief pieces that give a sense of the research agendas pursued by conference participants. Like other allies, Canada has a vested interest in the United States' capacity to find the proper balance between global leadership and efficient and legitimate international institutions. In the first article, William Wohlforth, of Dartmouth College, explains why the US must make strong international security institutions an integral part of its own grand strategy. He sees more positive movement in the direction of strengthened security institutions than many critics contend, and gives a few indications as to how the US can play a constructive role in that process. If security institutions are to function adequately, however, all participants have to bear their share of the burden. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.009 |
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".