Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nation of peacekeepers or soldiers? Honest broker, loyal ally, or chore boy for empire? Attempts to define Canada’s past, present, and proper international role have often led to contradiction and incendiary debate. Canada and the United Nations seeks to move beyond simplistic characterizations by allowing evidence, rather than ideology, to drive the inquiry. The result is a pragmatic and forthright assessment of the best practices in Canada’s UN participation. Sparked by the Harper government’s realignment of Canadian internationalism, Canada and the United Nations reappraises the mythic and often self-congratulatory assumptions that there is a distinctively Canadian way of interacting with the world, and that this approach has profited both the nation and the globe. While politicians and diplomats are given their due, this collection goes beyond many traditional analyses by including the UN-related attitudes and activities of ordinary Canadians. Contributors find that while Canadians have exhibited a broad range of responses to the UN, fundamental beliefs about the nation’s relationship with the world are shared widely among citizens of various identities and eras. While Canadians may hold inflated views of their country’s international contributions, their notions of Canada’s appropriate role in global governance correlate strongly with what experts in the field consider the most productive approaches to the Canada-UN relationship. In an era when some of the globe’s most profound challenges – climate change, refugees, terrorism, economic uncertainty – are not constrained by borders, Canada and the United Nations provides a timely primer on Canada’s diplomatic strengths.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.040 |
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".