MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2504767574 · doi:10.1057/9781137023735_4

Canada’s Minervian Moment: Global Activism and Domestic Politics

2013· book-chapter· en· W2504767574 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim Richard Nossal

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilateralismPolitical scienceTransformative learningPoliticsForeign policyPublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)ConventionPolitical economyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in the early 1990s, just as the Cold War was coming to an end, the Canadian government began to embrace an active — and activist — foreign policy agenda, marked by an embrace of multilateralism that went well beyond Canada’s traditional and historical attachment to international cooperation. 1 During this period Canada made a sustained effort to transform the norms, the institutions, and the leadership of the global system. The most prominent of these initiatives are among those examined in more detail in this volume: the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the global ban on antipersonnel landmines, and the creation of an International Criminal Court. But, as I will show, Canada’s transformative foreign policy agenda went well beyond these high-profile initiatives to include a range of initiatives that fit well into the “Minervian” analysis outlined by the editor. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0210.019
Scholarly communication0.0140.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→