Evaluating Canadian economic diplomacy: Canada's relations with emerging markets in the Americas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the Canadian Strategy for the Americas, announced in Santiago, Chile, in 2007, the Harper government committed itself to making the Americas a top priority in Canadian foreign policy and to increasing Canada's presence in the region. The Americas Strategy can be seen as a precursor to later attempts by the Canadian government to develop stronger economic ties with the world's “emerging economies.” The 2013 announcement of the Global Markets Action Plan (GMAP) signaled an intensification of the commercial focus of the Americas Strategy (while extending the geographic focus to other emerging economies). This article examines Canadian policies toward Latin America, with particular emphasis on the two largest and most important regional markets, Mexico and Brazil. It argues that the Americas Strategy is best interpreted as a form of “global bricolage”, a haphazard attempt to cobble together a response to the rise of emerging markets in the Americas, rather than a consistent and coherent strategy. As a result, Canada's diplomatic relations with both countries have shifted between indifference and hostility, and the trade record has been lacklustre.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".