Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book explores the psychological–cultural dimension of the United States–Canada relationship by analyzing how each country has viewed the other. Drawing on a wide range of data, including primary sources, secondary literature, and survey research, the methodology is historical/analytical, seeking to explicate and understand how Americans and Canadians, and their elites, have viewed one another from the moment they were launched on separate trajectories, why they developed and held such ideas, and what consequences these images had for the bilateral relationship between the countries. American and Canadian images of the other have deep roots and are, in many respects, recognizably the same today as they were many decades ago. Moreover, even when anchored to important realities of the other, such images influence the perception and interpretation of events, and actions taken by the other. How Americans and Canadians have viewed each other, the sources of these ideas, the way they have been influenced by each country’s domestic politics and place within the international system, and the consequences for their bilateral relationship are among the questions examined. Interdisciplinary in approach, the book will appeal to scholars and students of political science, international relations, and history.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".