MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802530837 · doi:10.1177/0020702018765079

Reason over passion: Pierre Trudeau, human rights, and Canadian foreign policy

2018· article· en· W2802530837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asa McKercher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsRights of NatureInternational human rights lawCharterLinguistic rightsFundamental rightsRight to propertyPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)LawInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsForeign policySanctionsEnthusiasmPolitical economySociologyPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the literature on human rights, the 1970s are often viewed as a period in which rights achieved a breakthrough globally. While rights regimes, activist networks, and the overall discourse of human rights certainly came into their own during this decade, the rights revolution had its limitations, particularly at the international level. In the Canadian context, the government of Pierre Trudeau advanced a domestic rights program, culminating in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In terms of foreign policy, however, Trudeau was far more cautious. Tracing Pierre Trudeau’s stance toward international human rights, this article points to the prime minister’s realist outlook as having delimited the place of rights in Canadian foreign policy during his time in office. Thus, there was little enthusiasm on the part of the Canadian government to support self-determination movements, to impose bilateral sanctions against abhorrent regimes, or to loudly condemn rights violators when doing so would seemingly accomplish little. The point of this paper is not to condemn Trudeau, but rather to understand why Canada’s rights revolution stopped at the water’s edge.

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)0.007
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.032
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207