Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Canada and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1970, Canada has been concerned both with upholding political principles and with the pursuit of economic goals in interactions with China. Dramatic changes associated with China’s transition from Soviet-style central planning to a new system of authoritarian capitalism have redefined the two aspects of the SinoCanadian relationship. It has been argued that Canada has been ineffective in formulating and pursuing a China policy during this period of transformation, failing to capitalize on the advantage of an early recognition of the PRC. For instance, in his book Pacific Challenge (1986), Eric Downton described Canada’s inattention to China as a “Pacific blind spot.” This research follows two methods to investigate whether this is in fact an accurate appraisal of Canada’s China policy past and present. Interviews conducted in China with Canadians engaged in business and public affairs are complemented by an extensive review of scholarly work. The findings suggest that Canada’s China policy has been constrained by the structure of the Canadian economy and by concerns over public opinion. In addition, Canada has adapted slowly to China’s transformation because of strong commitments to established economic and cultural ties to the United States and Europe
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".