‘Secondary foreign policy’ through the prism of cross-border governance in the US–Canada Pacific Northwest border region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to revisit the notion of ‘secondary foreign policy’ through the analysis of cross-border governance in the US–Canada Pacific Northwest border region. Although pro-open border organizations in this borderland support secondary foreign policy principles, they collectively need to adjust them, due to the increasing border securitization on the Canada–US border. In other words, the militarization of the border should not affect mutually beneficial cross-border interactions and relations. Using Neil Fligstein and Doug McAdam's ‘field theory’, this paper analyses how the field of cross-border governance in the Pacific Northwest tends to evolve in a new geopolitical context after 9/11, in which free trade and cross-border flows are subjected to growing ‘primary foreign policy’ security imperatives. The specific focus on two cross-border organizations reveals how primary and secondary foreign policy actors seek to work on joint cross-border projects, in spite of contrasting interests and steady blind spots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".