Bibliographic record
Abstract
What Room for Manoeuvre?raises a question that has haunted Canadian policy-makers and citizens since Confederation: how free is the country to pursue what its various governments consider to be most proper and advantageous course in the world outside Canada?A preoccupation with an independent foreign policy has always been present but it has ebbed and flowed over time.However, such concerns have become acute since the signing of a free trade agreement with the United States in 1989 and the addition of Mexico to nafta in 1994.As was made clear by public debates and demonstrations surrounding the trilateral summit at Montebello last August, worries about the consequences of integration have not abated over almost twenty years of functioning free trade.After a general introduction in which the editors carefully lay out the problem of "room for manoeuvre" and outline the many ways in which the book explores its facets, Wendy Dobson sets the tone by forcefully warning against complacency and by outlining the key areas where efforts are needed if what policy space there remains is to be captured.She calls in particular for clarity regarding what is to be done with that room to manoeuvre.The rest of the book looks at the problem from a variety of angles.A full section explores "the Ottawa game," especially the elbow room that the main foreign policy bureaucracies have carved for themselves.Many of the analyses presented challenge currently fashionable views.The overwhelming weight of the Centre, namely the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices, is put in historical
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.724 | 0.687 |
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".