Bibliographic record
Abstract
The best collections of academic essays ask a pivotal question that its contributors try to answer.Brian Bow and Andrea Lane asked their authors, "What happened to the study of Canadian foreign policy?"The question, posed to authors chosen from a diversity of backgrounds and opin ions, was deliberately provocative.Their answers reflect this diversity and their disagreements.The overall result is a fascinating and important reflection not only upon the study of Canadian foreign policy but also upon the changing character of Canadian universities and Canada itself.The gender balance of the authors and editors in this book strikingly indicates the differences between past and present.In its heyday in the mid-twentieth century, the study of Canadian foreign policy was dominated by white males -as were political science and history departments.Moreover, historians and political scientists often collaborated in research projects, at conferences, and on courses.In the 1950s and 1960s, the academic study of Canadian foreign relations was more the province of political science than history.The result, however, was indistinguishable from history.Fred Soward of the University of British Columbia and John Holmes and James Eayrs of the University of Toronto did historical research and produced volumes that sold well as they supervised a generation of young political scientists writing theses on Canadian diplomatic history.Beginning in the 1970s, the grand themes, historical narrative, crowded graduate seminars, frequent collaboration between historians and political scientists, media attention, and frequent pilgrimages to Ottawa were fading.Much that was bad was lost, as the seven female authors in Canadian
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.440 | 0.342 |
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".