The European Union in international relations of Canada at the end of XX – beginning of XXI century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and the EU had a common vision of the fundamentals of the international relations system in the late XX – early XXI century and the need to respect the principles of international law. Canada in this matter has always acted together with other international actors on a coalition basis, accumulating defense potential.
 The EU has seen in Canadians close partners who share its values and have similar approaches to resolving conflict, so there are prospects for development of bilateral cooperation in the international arena.
 This was possible also due to the emergence of the Common foreign and defense policy of the EU and the implementation of important steps towards the development of European security policy and defense (ESDP). Therefore, at least a hypothetical European defense identity allows Canada to establish international cooperation with the EU in the defense sphere.
 Ottawa sought to demonstrate that Europe remains important to Canadian and international security interests, so he ESDP must not lead to the destruction of traditionally close relations between Canada and the European partners. Constitutive remains also link Europe with Canada in the framework of NATO.
 After the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and the terrorist attacks of 2001, the EU is particularly interested in boosting relations with Canada. Despite the unity of views and approaches to solving most of the problems of international relations in the late XX – early XXI century between Canada and the EU, a common component in bilateral relations is still far from perfect, leaving the prospects for improving the Canadian-European cooperation on the international arena.
 Keywords: Canada, the European Union, international relationships, foreign policy
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".