Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is about how Canada projects itself to the world through its "soft power," a term coined by the American scholar Joseph S. Nye, Jr., to refer to the ability of a country to persuade and attract followers through the attractiveness of its culture, political ideals, and policies.1 Nye pronounced that Canada, as a middle power, was well positioned to project such soft power and thus to increase its global influence. 2 In the Canadian context, the idea of soft power is most firmly associated with Lloyd Axworthy's tenure as foreign minister (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000), when it became the guiding concept for the Liberal government's human security agenda and led to notable achievements such as the Ottawa Convention on the banning of anti-personnel land mines.3 Throughout history, the use (and abuse) of hard power -the ability to coerce through military and economic might -has been the primary organizing principle of the international system.However, beginning in the second half of the twentieth century, with growing levels of interdependence resulting from an expanded multilateral system and advances in communications technologies, not to mention the blurring of lines separating international and domestic policy, countries began to pay increasing attention to how their images and policies played out in the international public domain.There is now a global consensus that the array of interrelated international challenges -running the gamut from increasingly unequal levels of development to environmental degradation and the threat of global terrorism -cannot be resolved by military intervention or development assistance alone.For most countries, exercising soft power has become a necessary complement to hard power (or a substitute for hard power in the case of less affluent nations) to ensure economic prosperity and greater security.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.529 | 0.327 |
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".