The Comparative “Continentalization” of Security and Defence Policy in North America and Europe: Canadian Multilateralism in a Unipolar World?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay seeks to assess the comparative significance of defence and security “continentalism” in both North America and Europe. In particular, it invokes the European example to shed light on the North American one, as a means of taking the measure of contemporary Canadian defence and security dispensations. This essay departs from, and indeed turns on its head, the traditional (mythic) conceptualization of continentalism as a dispensation that betrays internationalism and, even worse, betrays Canada. Instead, the term is employed here as a tool of grand strategy that implies the pursuit of an internationalist, though hardly altruistic, agenda through deliberate but not exclusive reliance upon cooperation within a continental setting. Nor is Canada alone in using continentalist means to obtain broader internationalist ends; European states have been doing this for some time. Will Canada continue to be able to incorporate elements of “continentalism” in furthering an internationalist security agenda? Here there must be some room for doubt, in large part for reasons that are beyond the control of policymakers in Ottawa, as they are to be found within the domestic American context. Still, there are some things Canadian leaders can and should do to minimize the geostrategic risks to Canada implicit in a “unipolar” world.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".