MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canadian Foreign Policy

2020· reference-entry· en· W4230362564 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Relations · 2020
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyProsperityPolitical scienceForeign policyNationalismPolitical economyPoliticsNational securityGeopoliticsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era of instability, upheaval, and change Canada’s place in the world remains uncertain. This is an era of significant geopolitical shifts, nationalism, and identity politics. As a result, the institutions in which Canada has invested significant capital, such as trade, political, and security organizations, are being tested and stretched to the limit. In essence, Canada’s fate and future is structurally contingent on its relationship with the United States; a relationship that paradoxically is key to enhancing Canadian sovereignty while at the same time having the potential to reduce it. Canada’s foreign policy has been captivated by three or perhaps four ends: the establishment of peace and security through the rule of law, maintaining a harmonious and productive relationship with the United States, and ensuring economic prosperity and competitiveness through trade and investment. To these three core elements we might add enhancing national unity and its corollary strengthening Canadian sovereignty. While these ends remain largely unchanged, where we would find a great deal of variation over time is how various governments envision achieving them. The publications cited in this article examine these emerging issues as well as those grounded in overarching debates about Canada’s place in the world, its relationship to the United States, and the importance of international institutions in advancing Canadian interests and values. While some of the readings may be regarded as definitive and others seminal, much of what is identified is intended to provide insights on different ways of thinking about Canada’s foreign policy, who shapes it, and to what end.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.292 · 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