Japan, Canada, and the U.S. ballistic missile defense program: A comparative analysis of middle-power relations with a superpower.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ballistic missile defense (BMD) is a significant and controversial security issue in the world today. The United States (U.S.) is the leader in BMD development and deployment. This thesis analyzes the differing orientations to BMD of two key U.S. allies, Japan and Canada. The central questions asked in the thesis are: Why did Japan choose to join the U.S.-led BMD program as an active cooperative country in 2003, while Canada chose not to formally join in 2005? What inferences can we draw about BMD politics from these decisions? These questions were answered in three steps. First, I developed an analytic approach inspired by Putnam's two-level game theory. Second, I applied this approach to my two case studies. Japan-U.S. and Canada-U.S. BMD relations between 1983 and 2008 were analyzed at two levels, domestic and international, which resulted in identifying six international-related factors and two domestic-related factors influencing Japan's and Canada's BMD decision-making process. And third, the two case studies were compared and analyzed. I conclude that the basis for the two countries' foreign policy decisions was significantly different. Japanese foreign policy decision-making was rooted in realist thinking, while Canadian foreign policy decision-making was rooted in a combination of liberal internationalist and realist thinking. --P. ii.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".