MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3159884653

CANADA’S FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21st CENTURY: FEW GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS

2017· article· uk· W3159884653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryna Bessonova

Bibliographic record

VenueЕлектронний історичний журнал Scriptorium nostrum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilateralismForeign policyPolitical scienceChinaHuman rightsDemocracyDimension (graph theory)Human DimensionNational interestPublic administrationInternational tradeLawEconomicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article it was proposed an attempt to make some general observations about the top priorities of today’s Canada foreign policy. Even a cursory review shows that today’sCanada has a wide range of priorities in current foreign policy which includes both valuable and regional dimensions. In the article the special attention is paid to the overview of the main foreign policy values which are declared as a top priority for Canada: territorial integrity, human rights, democracy, respect for the rule of law, and an aspiration to free and friendly trade. Another focus is made on the regional dimension of Canadian top priorities. It was emphasized that regional priorities of Canadian national interest evolved from monocentric orientation on the Great Britain and after it on the United States towards the multilateralism and active participation in international organizations and institutions. More detailed examination were made about bilateral relations of Canada with such international actors as the USA, China, Russia (about Arctic issue), the EU, Mexico, Israel

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0130.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueЕлектронний історичний журнал Scriptorium nostrum→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→