Crafting a New Canadian Foreign Policy: Strategic Sovereignty for a “Leaderless World”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining Canada's foreign policy has always been a conundrum for Canadian decision makers, torn between the desire to carve out a space of Canada's own, while recognizing the benefit and necessity of ties with the US. Today, this job has become much more difficult because America's global leadership role is changing in ways that are difficult to predict, but that will inevitably make it harder for Canada to navigate internationally. Canada has no choice but to develop greater strategic sovereignty. What Canada needs now, nineteen years after the last foreign policy review, is a national conversation about Canada's role in the world. The goal should be to encourage a sense of shared national purpose and craft a renewed foreign policy for an uncertain world. To do so, Canadian decision makers should ask five core questions: first, how should Canada's foreign policy prioritize Canadian values with ‘more pragmatism and less posturing'? Second, what balance should we seek between Canada's global role and its bilateral focus on the US? Third, how can we mitigate the risk to Canada of a more inward-looking, protectionist and unpredictable US? How should we adapt Canada's international engagement to take into account a less globally-engaged US? Finally, what specific Canadian interests, assets and vulnerabilities should our foreign policy prioritize? The article offers a framework for Canada to set about rebuilding its strategic sovereignty, launching a national conversation to rethink and rewrite its foreign policy narrative, redefine its international priorities and create a sense of common purpose around Canada’s role as a global actor.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".