Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regarding Canada's role and reputation in the field of international relations the widespread public belief is that Canada is a tolerant and peaceful nation maintaining a safe distance from conflict and acting as a force for good in the world.Yves Engler challenges this taken-for-granted assumption asking readers 'whether or not we should be so proud of Canada's foreign affairs?' (4).Engler's aim is to expose readers to a side of international relations that remains hidden from public knowledge and to generate public debate as to Canada's actions abroad.In this way, he intends for the book to be an antidote to what he sees as ignorance regarding the actions of the Canadian government in support of multinational corporations, military coups and authoritarian governments abroad.Engler's book is not organized into clearly identifiable chapters, rather case studies divide the book into sections, including the Caribbean, the Middle East, Mexico, Central and South America, East Asia, Central and South Asia, and Africa.Within each section, Engler outlines Canada's self-serving, anti-democratic, colonial, and environmentally destructive foreign policy initiatives (34).In doing so, Engler attempts to cover a variety of contentious topics including colonialism, Canada's unique bind to the United States, the fight against communism and terrorism, war, aid and exploitation, and how these measures are very lucrative profit making opportunities.The author employs a 'journalistic approach' to the case studies, whereby he reports facts, news bulletins, policy briefings, and headline stories regarding Canada's role in a particular region.While the case study method can provide a rich connection between empirical observations, as well as the concepts and theories utilized to explain these observations (see Blatter and Haverland, 2012, 20), this book would benefit from an overarching theoretical framework and conceptual terminology informed by theories and approaches to colonialism and imperialism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".