Building blocks of the Canada–US relationship: the integrative role of cross-border regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viewed by their respective constituents as “friends” or “good neighbors,” the US and Canada have many successful cross-border partnerships that vary in terms of scale and sector. While the broader Canada–US relationship can be viewed through a national governance framework – including border cooperation, leadership communication, and a robust trade relationship – the regional organizations and collaborations that span the length of the border are uniquely innovative. These multi-level partnerships and collaborations, which include subnational governments (cities, counties, and states/provinces) and private sector initiatives, highlight the strengths and vivacity of regional actors in pursuing cross-border governance and collaboration from the ground up. By focusing on several case studies, this chapter builds on thematic examples from selected Canada–US border regions, the energy sector, and resource management. This chapter also addresses the emerging role of Indigenous Nations in cross-border governance, which transcends a binational framework and remains largely grounded in regional contexts. In so doing, the chapter investigates the depth and breadth of both formal and informal governance structures that drive much of the broader Canada–US relationship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".