Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is risk in being too confident of one's talent.Some Canadians long ago got the idea that as a nation they are naturally gifted at negotiating the international system and winning friends around the world.But even if this were true, such negotiating would always call for self-critical adaptation rather than complacency.The international system favours Canada only insofar as the system stays safe and orderly.That safe, orderly international system has been provided for a long time by the United States and the system of alliances of which Canada is part.Canadians, accustomed throughout their history to imperial protection and international rules, have little capacity to protect their interests on their own.Many Canadians' insight into the power that provides security to them and others is based too much on bits of distilled opinion, perhaps supported by a few visits to one US city or region.More effort is needed to understand a complex global superpower system.To this end, history helps, especially when based on primary material.Memories and opinions get distorted with time, but documents and records preserve with greater accuracy what we knew and thought, and what actually happened.This book is mainly based on such material, accumulated while I worked at the US Embassy in Ottawa from 1990 to 2010, during years of peak US influence and of maximum transparency in US-Canada relations.Beginning in those years, and in the period since, North America has entered a new reality.There is more need than ever to understand the facts and details about the players in this relationship, how they operate, where we have come from, and the kind of path we are on today.Whatever the virtues of my own analysis, the documentary record certainly needs to be opened up and read.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.578 | 0.401 |
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".