A graphic turn for Canadian foreign policy: insights from systemism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of systemism, an innovative and user-friendly technique for generating lucid, graphic summaries of analytical arguments, can enhance the study of Canadian foreign policy. As research and pedagogy on Canada and international relations move forward, its content becomes increasingly vast and intellectually diverse. Systemism offers both a means and a method toward enhanced communication in the face of challenges posed by the rapid expansion of topics and the proliferation of new theories and terminology in the fast-paced world of the new millennium. This is the motivation for a special issue of CFPJ that will show systemism in action across a wide range of issues and locations. This introductory article will proceed in four sections. The first section provides an overview of the project as a whole. Section two introduces systemism as a graphic approach toward the communication of ideas. The third section applies systemism to convey the framework for analysis from the standard textbook in the field – The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy (Nossal, K. R., Roussel, S., & Paquin, S. The politics of Canadian Foreign Policy. Queen’s policy studies series (4th ed.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015). Section four outlines the articles that follow in making up the special issue.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".