4. Population Movements and the Making of Canada- U.S. Not- So- Foreign Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between Canada and the United States has prompted shifting and contradictory assessments that nonetheless invoke recurring themes.Especially common are those that emphasize concord and mutuality, invoking terms such as neighborliness, friendship, and kinship or partnership and alliance.1Some stress the differences between these proximate nations, tracing a continental divide that separates the United States, a nation of "fire," from Canada, one of "ice," or, moving to the planetary scale, envisioning the United States as bellicose Mars and Canada as shining Venus.2Especially for Canadian writers, asymmetry often provides the main motif: physically massive Canada dominated economically, politically, socially, and culturally by the smaller but wealthier, more populous, much more powerful, often oblivious United States.In an oft-quoted phrase, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau of Canada in 1969 likened the relationship to that of a "mouse in bed with an elephant."3Several recent analyses echo the theme, calling "life with Uncle [Sam]" increasingly "too close for comfort" for Canada.4Yet no trope concerning these nations' relationship is more familiar than that describing their boundary as the "longest undefended border in the world."For at least a century diplomats, politicians, scholars, and journalists have hailed the boundary, 5,525 miles (8,891 kilometers) long, as a symbol of international cooperation.5In 1941 Edgar W. McInnis, noted historian and veteran of the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the First World War, published his classic account of U.S.-Canadian relations, The Unguarded Frontier.His slightly reworked trope hints to a twenty-first-century audience of a nascent "borderlands" sensibility.6Among other subjects McInnis explored how the unguarded border facilitated
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".