Decoding the canada's foreing and security policy: tracking the strategic and ethicliberal approaches of a middle power's behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo intenta explicar la principal paradoja que debe enfrentar Canadá al formular su política de seguridad internacional. Explicada en términos económicos y políticos, esta paradoja es el resultado de la contradicción entre la habilidad canadiense para conseguir sus objetivos estratégicos en función de su interés nacional y su dependencia de los Estados Unidos. La primera sección esboza tres ejemplos representativos para evaluar esta paradoja: la posición de Canadá en el régimen de seguridad norteamericano, las relaciones entre Canadá y Estados Unidos en materia de seguridad económica, y el universo de posibilidades para actuar con el que cuenta Canadá como potencia media. La segunda sección sugiere que la agenda liberal, especialmente en relación con sus imperativos éticos, ha sido establecida por este país para minimizar esta paradoja. Al buscar configurar esta agenda, Canadá es capaz de reafirmar su identidad nacional y, por lo tanto, su independencia de los Estados Unidos. La tercera sección evalúa tanto la paradoja explicada como la reafirmación de la identidad canadiense durante los gobiernos de Jean Chrétien (1993-2003), Paul Martin (2003-2006) y Stephen Harper (2006).
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".