MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W259729160 · doi:10.1177/002070200706200208

Divided Discipline?

2007· article· en· W259729160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Lipson, Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson, Michael J. Tierney

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsSubject (documents)CurriculumSociologyPolitical scienceInternational relationsForeign policyPublic administrationMedia studiesLawLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes text stops here in original.)The centre of gravity for the academic discipline of relations is located in the United States, but Canada boasts a vibrant academic community of relations scholars.' Through their teaching, research, and consultations with policymakers, Canadian IR scholars influence how Canadian citizens and policymakers think about world politics, and sometimes directly affect the practice of Canadian foreign policy itself. federal Liberal party's recent leadership race came down to a choice between two former academics: Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is associated with the so-called Calgary school of conservative scholars in the University of Calgary's political science department/ However, the views of Canadian IR scholars and their influence on public opinion and foreign policy have not been a subject of systematic study.This article reports results from a survey of IR faculty at Canadian universities conducted in 2006.' survey extends a study of US college and university IR professors originally conducted by scholars at the College of William and Mary in 2004 and repeated in 2oo6.4 biennial teaching, research, and politics (TRIP) survey consists of questions in four parts, dealing with teaching practice and curricula, the academic discipline of relations, issues related to research-including theoretical perspectives employed, methodologies, and topics studied-and views on current and historical policy issues/ 2004 survey organizers attempted to contact every instructor teaching IR courses at the university level in the United States. In 2006 the survey was repeated in the US and extended to Canada.6 2006 US survey received responses from 1,112 ascholars. Canadian survey was completed by no of 275 scholars contacted at Canadian universities.7 smaller size of the Canadian survey makes its findings subject to greater uncertainty. Nonetheless, it offers the most comprehensive overview of the field of Canadian IR. survey paints a portrait of a vital intellectual community of Canadian IR scholars that is simultaneously distinct from, and heavily influenced by, its US counterpart. At the same time, the Canadian academic community is more closely aligned with and influenced by its European and particularly British colleagues in terms of theory, methodology, and epistemology.INSIDE THE IVORY TOWER: THE VIEW FROM CANADADescribing the results of the 2004 US survey in Foreign Policy, Peterson, Tierney, and Maliniak noted, The relations field today is surprisingly young. Half of the professors who teach at US colleges today received their PhDs in the past 12 years.* A similar pattern holds for Canadian IR instructors in the 2006 survey. median year for completion of the doctorate was 1995, and the average age was 44. Respondents were evenly distributed across academic ranks, with 30 percent each at the assistant and full professor levels, and 29 percent at the associate level. Nearly all the rest held positions as lecturers or instructors, with one percent each reporting positions as emeritus faculty and other. Canadian IR, like its US cousin, is dominated by men, with women accounting for only 26 percent of respondents.Some interesting differences emerge in the portrait of the two IR communities. Canadian IR, for instance, appears to be more international than American IR. Thirty-six percent of instructors at Canadian universities were born outside of Canada, while only 15 percent of US respondents indicated a country of origin outside the United States. Forty-six percent of Canadian faculty received their PhDs outside of Canada, while only four percent of Americans received their degrees outside the United States. A third of the Canadian respondents reported receiving their PhDs from one of four institutions: York University, the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, and Carleton University. …

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2610.074

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207