Parliamentary Discourse and Humanitarian Decision-Making: An Analysis of Canada's Response to the Crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the extent to which parliamentary debates and committee hearings influenced the Canadian Cabinet's humanitarian assistance decisions for Afghanistan (2021) and Ukraine (2022).Conducting a mixed-method discourse analysis, including quantitative frequency analysis and qualitative thematic examination, it argues that Canada's humanitarian responses were shaped not solely by moral values or strategic interests but by a complex interplay of political, security, and solidarity factors.This 'multisources' approach demonstrates how domestic political forces, including MPs' advocacy and criticism, have partially influenced the humanitarian support afforded to Afghan and Ukrainian nationals.By examining the nuanced impact of parliamentary engagement, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the complexities shaping Canada's humanitarian actions.It suggests that humanitarian support decisions have been influenced by a broader spectrum of domestic political dynamics beyond conventional moral or strategic considerations.viii
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".