Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Iran’s hostile relations with the West since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Canada had often played the role of an honest broker and maintained relations with Iran, contrary to the US. Although the Canadian Government has always viewed the Islamic Regime as hostile, it was interested in pursuing diplomacy and other means to pressure Iran in areas such as human rights violations. This approach to dealing with Iran was altered and moved towards securitization after 2006, with the election of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. This paper will examine the securitization theory and apply it to the Harper administration’s approach to Iran, leading up to the final securitized moment of the closure of the Canadian embassy in Tehran and the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from Ottawa in 2012. This paper will then analyze the reasons that the Canadian Government provided for pursuing this decision. Ultimately, the research will present the argument that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s identification of Iran as the biggest threat to global peace and security was an exaggeration of the real level of threat that Iran actually posed. This inflated level of threat may have had many causes, but chief among them was the Prime Minister’s personal convictions and relations with Israel and his foreign affairs policy approach which discouraged him from communicating with states or entities that were categorized as bad. Although this decision did not have any devastating effects on Canada, given that relations with Iran were always limited, it also did not achieve any desirable outcomes. In addition, various components of this securitizing move, such as listing Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, have rendered any decision by future governments to reinstall relations with Iran difficult.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".