Canada at a crossroads in twenty-first-century global affairs: or, an independent Canadian foreign policy for what?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their policy commentary, Professors Dr Adam Chapnick and Dr Jeremy Wildeman consider Canada’s foreign policy and Canadian sovereignty amid the myriad fault lines appearing in international relations due to significant change to the global distribution of power. As the unipolar moment of United States hegemony appears to give way to an increasingly multipolar world order, and amid change to both the demographic composition of Canada and how Canadians view the world around them, each makes a case for what is the best foreign policy strategy for Canada going forward. Dr Wildeman argues for a new approach where Canada continues to maintain strong and good relations with the United States, but where it acts more independently in search of its own interests while seeking to engage more broadly with other states, notably in a Global South that millions more Canadians now identify with personally. Dr Chapnick, meanwhile, argues for a renewed emphasis on Canada’s close, reliable, and familiar alliance with the United States, especially because of the new uncertainties in the global system. Both argue that their prescribed policy suggestions may best represent Canada, and reinforce its sovereignty and interests, in a period where each could be at risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".