Bringing the transgovernmental in: the public service in the Canada-United States relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines an often-overlooked dimension of Canada-United States relations : relations between Canadian and American public servants. Meetings between political leaders of Canada and the US may make front-page headlines, but it is the myriad of networks and interconnections between Canadian and American public servants that constitute the lion’s share of bilateral activity. Notwithstanding the multitude of daily cross-border, inter-departmental, and inter-agency interactions, there has been relatively little systematic theoretical or empirical attention to the public sector dimension of Canada-US relations. Public administration scholars tend to train their sights on the domestic level and pay little or no attention to the public management dimension of international affairs. A recently edited volume studying contemporary Canadian public administration does not examine these relations. International relations scholars, for their part, tend to oversimplify domestic politics and policy institutions. This text contributes to bridging this gap in the literature. It builds on the concept of transgovernmentalism, relations between legislative, executive, regulatory, and judicial players with their international counterparts. It examines the mechanisms and processes by which public sector players interact across borders (e.g., informal relations, formal agreements, joint organizations, etc.). The article explores the relationship between the degree of bilateral policy coordination in a policy field or issue area and the mechanisms of transgovernmental activity characterizing cross-border relations in that policy domain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".