MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012101678 · doi:10.4324/9780429425073-11

The Trump Administration and Canada

2020· book-chapter· en· W3012101678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Hawes, Christopher Kirkey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most observers who attempt to understand and explain President Trump’s approach toward U.S. foreign policy tend to focus on explanations that emphasize personal behavioral indicators, political calculations squarely focused on the core priorities of his conservative base, and his general lack of appetite for the complexities of foreign affairs. As a self-described businessman and dealmaker, his view of foreign policy tends to be more practical and leans toward a model that focuses on outcomes rather than on relationships and is more geared to short-term solutions. Yet, in the search for convincing explanations, what has too long been ignored as the principal force informing, shaping, and ultimately defining President Trump’s general preferences, not to mention his specific policy choices, is the world in which the president finds himself. This chapter looks specifically at how changes at the level of the international system have come to affect U.S. foreign policy and have helped to shape the president’s strategy. Specifically, the authors’ examine President Trump’s efforts to reconfigure America’s relationship with Canada. Since 2016, two areas in particular have been the target of the current administration and the president’s America First commitment: a desire to renegotiate and ‘fix’ the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and efforts to secure a more meaningful commitment from Ottawa to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This chapter demonstrates that the application of American power and influence in these specific cases yielded dividends, resulting in significant, albeit modest changes consistent with Washington’s interests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207