Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the quarter-century since T.H.B. Symons issued his report on Canadian studies, the discipline of international relations (IR) and Canadian, foreign policy studies - found to be so meagre and Americanized by Symons - has been transformed. In English-speaking universities, the discipline has been Canadianized in a number of ways, including the development of a vibrant literature and a national approach distinct from the American mainstream. Most important, however, the IR professoriate has been progressively Canadianized, not simply in terms of citizenship, but also in doctoral training. Moreover, the pattern of IR hirings altered how international relations is taught in Canada, creating a theoretical pluralism that, again, is distinct from the American academy. In short, the vision articulated by Symons and other Canadian nationalists in the early 1970s has been almost perfectly realized in the case of international relations and Canadian foreign policy studies. The very success of the push for Canadianization has, however, given rise to the growth in postmodern theoretical approaches that are not unquestioningly nationalistic. As these perspectives increasingly take over mainstream scholarship, the pursuit of such overtly national projects as Canadian foreign policy studies will become more problematic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".