RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES: ASYMETRY AND INTERDEPENDENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyze the nature and content of bilateral Canadian-American asymmetric relations with uses the general scientific methods of empirical knowledge. The asymmetry of quantitative and qualitative parameters of Canada and the USA, which is caused by historical, geographical, political, economic, demographic and cultural factors, is revealed. It is proved that in the conditions of interdependence, the asymmetry of military potentials is not a determining factor in relations between the two North American countries. It found that the existing asymmetry of indicators between Canada and the United States does not create opportunities for the strong side to dictate its conditions and does not allow these relations to be turned into a one-sided relationship. Key Canadian strategies aimed at reducing asymmetry in relations with the United States are identified. It is indicated that “soft power” is an important factor in strengthening Canada’s political position in the asymmetric model of coexistence with the United States. The Relations between Canada and the United States are characterized not only by the high level of asymmetry and the wide application of regulatory mechanisms, but also by the high degree of interdependence that is particularly noticeable in the economic and cultural spheres. The asymmetric relationship between Canadian-American is evident in terms of reaching consensus in a wide range of activities. Key words: USA, Canada, Canadian-American Relations, Asymmetry, Interdependence, Potential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".