MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414144902 · doi:10.5206/sc.v14i1.22999

The Canadian Position on the US and China: 'The Middle-Power Without Power'

2025· article· en· W4414144902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. T. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Social Contract · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyAppealPosition (finance)InstitutionalismDistancingInstitutionalisationRefugeeOrder (exchange)Nationalism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cold War has long been over. So why is Canada’s foreign policy still stuck in the past? This essay argues that it is critical for Canada to renew and update its foreign policy, stating that Canada is now unprepared to deal with the United States relationship and the rise of China. The analytical framework of historical institutionalism and path dependency is used to examine why Canada’s international influence has faltered in the past few decades. It outlines that the historical institutionalization of Pierre Trudeau’s 1970 foreign policy created the Canadian international identity of the ‘helper-fixer’ that is insufficient for the 21st century. Path dependency of Canadian nationalism resulted in a gradual distancing from the US, leaving Canada alone to appeal to China’s increasing aggression. The proposed solution involves a rededication to the liberal international order through the blending of hard-power methods with Canada’s soft-power prowess — highlighting that renewed peacekeeping initiatives, and aligning with US interests are paramount in the stand against China.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0280.029
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Social ContractSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207