Canadian Official Development Aid to Latin America: The Struggle over the Humanitarian Agenda, 1963–1977
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1970s, as part of the Third Option policies of the federal government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada’s Official Development Aid (ODA) policy for Latin America was revised to give the private sector greater maneuverability within parts of Latin America and the Caribbean. This article’s focus on the internal and external institutional debates that surfaced over the shift from a humanitarian to a market-driven agenda reveals a moment in Canadian history when the nation’s external affairs cohesiveness was destabilized, marginalizing religious and humanitarian stakeholders that in the past had been instrumental in complementing and advancing Canada’s relief and rehabilitation efforts across the global South. An examination of the historical evidence suggests that Canada’s public “goodwill” of the 1950s and 1960s did not narrow in on Latin America during the early stages of ODA policy implementation; instead, it was the private sector that focused on this region. The shift in the ODA agenda was a direct response to the private sector’s regional business strategy as well as a foreign policy initiative to support US containment. The analysis concludes that this implicated Canada in the humanitarian crisis generated by the implementation of US Cold War policies in Latin America and the Caribbean during the 1970s, forcing humanitarian and religious groups to centre their attention on the region and ultimately leading to an ideological confrontation between sectors of civil society and government.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".