MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388334140 · doi:10.24124/c677/20231872

Managing the Canada-China Political Relationship in an Indo-Pacific Era

2023· article· en· W4388334140 on OpenAlex
Robert J. Hanlon, Che-Hui Lien

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersThompson Rivers University
KeywordsChinaConfusionPolitical sciencePoliticsPragmatismHumanitiesAuthoritarianismPluralism (philosophy)EconomySociologyDemocracyEconomicsPhilosophyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis paper outlines the risk and opportunity for managing an increasingly complex Canada-China bilateral relationship. As we argue, competitive pluralism and divergent political agency has led to increased tension and confusion on how Canada can build effective tactics for strengthening its relationship with China. To show this, we draw on the concept of social constructivism as a substantive theory for explaining how the current diplomatic crisis unfolded while calling for new and creative approaches for navigating the political relationship through socio-economic connections. We further contend that it is in Canada’s national interest for all levels of government and business actors to develop long-term strategies for working with the world’s second largest economy. Embracing political and economic pragmatism serves both Canada’s vital interests and values while offering a window on how to live with authoritarian China. We conclude with several policy recommendations for working with China through Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy framework.RésuméCet article décrit le risque et l'opportunité de gérer une relation bilatérale Canada-Chine de plus en plus complexe. Comme nous le soutenons, le pluralisme concurrentiel et l'agence politique divergente ont entraîné une tension et une confusion accrues sur la façon dont le Canada peut élaborer des tactiques efficaces pour renforcer ses relations avec la Chine. Pour le montrer, nous nous appuyons sur le concept du constructivisme social en tant que théorie de fond pour expliquer comment la crise diplomatique actuelle s'est déroulée tout en appelant à des approches nouvelles et créatives pour naviguer dans la relation politique à travers les connexions socio-économiques. Nous soutenons en outre qu'il est dans l'intérêt national du Canada que tous les niveaux du gouvernement et les intérêts divers des commerces élaborent des stratégies à long terme pour travailler avec la deuxième plus grande économie du monde. Adopter le pragmatisme politique et économique sert à la fois les intérêts vitaux et les valeurs du Canada tout en offrant une fenêtre sur la façon de vivre avec la Chine autoritaire. Nous concluons avec plusieurs recommandations politiques pour travailler avec la Chine dans le cadre de la Stratégie indopacifique du Canada.Keywords: Canada, China, Indo-Pacific, Agency, Foreign Policy, Business, DiplomacyMots-clés : Canada, Chine, Indo-Pacifique, Agence, Politique étrangère, Affaires, Diplomatie (Hanlon and Lien)

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it