MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799421131 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.55.04

Canada-Africa Relations in Changing Core-Periphery Dynamics: A Chance to “Come Back” Differently

2017· article· en· W2799421131 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Elizabeth Cobbett

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoDynamismPolitical scienceTransformative learningColonialismPoliticsPower (physics)Colonial ruleEconomic growthInternational relationsPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSociologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Department of Foreign Affairs Canada sees the dynamism at play across the African continent as calling out for Canadian engagement. Africa in the twenty-first century is no longer the continent emerging from colonial rule; it seeks new forms of relationships with international partners. The African Development Bank, for instance, has identified five priorities for inclusive growth on the continent. The challenges are huge, as is the potential for transformative change. But the conditions for international collaboration in achieving these goals have changed; African leaders are seeking new forms of associations and teamwork. Canada has an opportunity to “come back” differently if it can look beyond its narrow mining interests and become an active partner working with public authorities in need of new and bold international partnerships. Unfortunately, Trudeau's “Canada is back” campaign does not look set to change the status quo. And, in a world where the political economic power is moving east, African countries do not have much reason to listen to Canada.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0380.020
Scholarly communication0.0200.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207