Bibliographic record
Abstract
The India–Canada relationship has witnessed a number of highs and lows despite the two nations sharing common political views. This is perhaps best seen in the civil nuclear cooperation shared between the two. It is interesting to note that the relation between the two nations fractured twice due to nuclear issues in the past; today, nuclear cooperation is an important pillar, helping them to cement a new partnership. This article is an attempt to trace the civil nuclear relationship between India and Canada and to chart its future path. It has to be understood that the nuclear agreement between India and Canada is not restricted in its scope to just benefits for the two countries in developing nuclear technology and trade. It has larger economic and strategic benefits. India’s growing political and economic strength is promising. It is in Canada’s interest to pursue a closer relationship with India. It is in India’s interest to further strengthen this partnership in view of the resources and technology that Canada could provide India to achieve its development goals, especially its green agenda as ratified under the Paris Climate Change Agreement (2015).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".