Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article begins by describing how Canada’s current commitments to the United Nations are located within a long tradition of providing for international peace and security. It discusses the framework that has defined Canada’s approach to UN security issues since the 1950s, and suggests that an underlying set of ideas about the importance of human security and civilian protection has survived the recent so-called revolution in Canadian security policy and continues to help shape Canada’s current commitments to the United Nations. These contributions, examined in the second part of the article, are discussed in relation to four separate categories related to peace operations: deployment of troops; policy support; operational cooperation, including training, capacity building, and police; and financial support. These forms of Canadian support for UN peacekeeping remain robust—vibrant reminders of the country’s longstanding contribution to the UN’s multilateral security apparatus. Building on this conceptual framework and the country’s existing commitments would give Canada an important and re-invigorated UN role as Ottawa searches for a new international security policy following its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011. This is not to say that Canada should always seek to safeguard the country’s peacekeeping myth, or act primarily in the interests of the global community, or engage with the United Nations simply because it has traditionally done so. Rather, increasing Canada’s commitment in areas where the United Nations needs peacekeeping help is in line with Canadian strategic goals of constraining transnational terrorist and criminal groups by bringing about peace and development in conflict areas and addressing the problems faced by fragile states.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".