Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of Canadian Studies runs counter to recent economic trends that challenge the salience of the boundary between Canada and the United States. Books such as Nine Nations of North America (Garreau 1981) declare that the boundary is an irrelevant curiosity from a bygone era. Regional boundaries are more important than national boundaries when studying the geography of North America. Canada is viewed as nothing more than the “thirteenth Federal Reserve District” of the United States (Kindleberger 1987: 16). These statements suggest that Canada is not different from the United States, so why study geography from a Canadian perspective? One response is that the study of Canada endures because scholars persist in the idea that events (and the perception of events) in Canada differ from those elsewhere in North America. This chapter emphasizes research conducted by members of the Canadian Studies Specialty Group (CSSG) of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) between the late 1980s to the present. However, where relevant, we also include research conducted by other AAG members, scholars from the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS), and in some cases, Canadian and other scholars who have published in American journals. While we intend to present a comprehensive survey, it is by no means exhaustive. Our goal is to identify some major themes and diverse ways that Canadian geography has been studied in the United States. The chapter examines research conducted from the late 1980s to the present, and is organized around six themes: (1) economic geography and free trade; (2) political geography of national identities; (3) urban and social geography; (4) Canada’s regions: historical and cultural perspectives; (5) physical geography; and (6) the future of Canadian Studies. The deregulation of the Canadian economy accelerated with the implementation of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. Free trade influenced much of the recent research done on Canada’s economic geography. Prior to the FTA, Americans paid little attention to the Canadian economy (Romey 1989). The neglect stems from the lack of controversy between Canada and the United States.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.248 | 0.045 |
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".