Borderlands and Diplomacy: Rethinking Canada and the Alaska Boundary Dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians have been critical of the Canadian position during the Alaska boundary dispute, arguing that Canada brought a weak and unfounded case to the 1903 boundary tribunal and blamed Britain for sacrificing its interests when the decision went in the United States’ favour. This article reassesses the Canadian position. First, it examines the written arguments submitted to the tribunal, demonstrating that the Canadian position was stronger, and the American position weaker, than the historiography has assumed. Second, the article examines how the tribunal viewed local history. The Americans effectively used evidence of occupation to support their claims, but Canadian officials chose not to present their own evidence because they were unable to reconcile local negotiations during the Klondike gold rush with their diplomatic position. These actions complicated the Canadian government’s ability to counter the American case but shielded Canada from an unfavourable ruling. Together, written documents and local history show that, far from being helpless victims, inexperienced Canadian officials took a pragmatic, if haphazard, approach to the challenges of a boundary dispute with its powerful neighbour, providing a broader understanding of how Canada’s borders were negotiated during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".