Overlooking nature: the Arctic, climate change, and environmental diplomacy in the study of Canadian foreign policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines three prominent concepts in post-Cold War foreign policy in Canada: the Arctic, climate change, and environmental diplomacy. We study the prevalence of articles on these topics in the wider field of Canadian foreign policy studies, who is responsible for their production, and how they relate to each other and to the broader field of Canadian foreign policy studies. Through a quantitative analysis of these concepts in six academic journals between 1989 and 2022, we find that contrary to their importance to Canadian foreign policy practice during that time, the Arctic, climate change, and environmental diplomacy are: (1) marginal to mainstream scholarship on Canadian foreign and security policy; (2) conceptually closely linked together; and (3) shaped by the knowledge production of a relatively small epistemic community of scholars. We outline the methodology of our literature review for the Arctic, climate change, and environmental diplomacy within Canadian foreign policy scholarship, present our findings, and discuss their significance for understanding these topics within the broader field of Canadian foreign policy studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".