Canada's Involvement in Overseas Conflict: Navigating International Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to develop informed recommendations on the appropriate nature and scope of Canada’s future involvement in overseas conflict based on a review and analysis of Canada’s involvement in the past. With conflict around the world increasing in frequency and complexity and the potential for catastrophic consequences, it is more important than ever that the Canadian Government develop appropriate foreign policy for Canada’s involvement in overseas conflict that reflects Canada’s capabilities, including both its strengths and limitations, to ensure that Canada maximizes its influence and positive contribution while minimizing its risks. This research aims to contribute to this development. Using the case studies of Canada’s intended peacekeeping role in former Yugoslavia and nation-building role in Afghanistan, this research means to answer the following: How should Canada’s past involvement in overseas conflict, both diplomatically and militarily, influence its future involvement in overseas conflict? In former Yugoslavia, many Canadian peacekeepers were sent to the region and, working with other states, successfully helped achieve lasting stability. In Afghanistan, the results differed drastically from the former. Canada and its allies faced what ultimately proved to be insurmountable opposition, suffered the loss of substantial human and other resources, and failed to achieve stability and peace. These vastly different cases illustrate the strengths and successes as well as the flaws and shortcomings associated with Canada’s involvement. From that vantage point, this research looks to make informed recommendations on how Canada should address future conflicts to maximize effective, successful participation and minimize its risk, taking into account the available resources and state relations.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".