Bibliographic record
Abstract
Once upon a time, Canada was a champion of global peacekeeping.1 That time was over fifty years ago.During this "golden age," Canada made significant troop contributions to United Nations (UN) missions around the world, and enthusiastically advocated for the newly minted international institutions of the post-1945 global order. 2 This liberal internationalist approach to foreign policy bolstered Canada's influence, allowing it to punch above its mid-sized weight class.3 The end of the Cold War in 1991, however, sparked a new wave of complex civil wars, making peacekeeping far more perilous.The frustrating crisis in Bosnia, brutal genocide in Rwanda, and horrifying atrocities in Somalia during the mid-1990s dampened Canadian enthusiasm for international missions in highly-fragmented and volatile states.Over the next two decades, Canadian peacekeeping commitments systematically declined, reaching all-time lows.4 In 2015, Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a revival of the Canadian peacekeeping tradition.Yet, after multiple delays, the long-awaited November 2017 announcement included no new troop commitments to any United Nations mission.What explains these changes in Canadian security policy over the past fifty years?Looking ahead, how will Canada respond to the new security threats of the twenty-first century?To answer these crucial questions, it is essential to contextualize decisions made on Parliament Hill within the wider international system.Indeed, when it comes to security policy, Canadian decisions -both in peacekeeping and warfighting -have always been shaped and constrained by great power politics.Canadian behaviour on the world stage not only reflects domestic values and interests, but also the global 19 Canada and the World: Managing Insecurity in a Changing Global Order aisha ahmad
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".