MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414144942 · doi:10.5206/sc.v15i1.22564

A Critical Dissection of the Conservative Party of Canada’s Foreign Policy Towards Israel

2025· article· en· W4414144942 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana El-Baraqouni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Social Contract · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish and Middle Eastern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyGovernment (linguistics)HostilityConservative governmentLivelihoodCoalition government

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay explores the relationship between Canada and Israel, and the foreign policy implemented to attempt to find a solution to the hostility between Israelis and Palestinians within their shared territorial region. It begins by arguing that Canada’s Conservative party, in particular, has committed to a unilateral approach for decades, in which they grant priority to Israel’s interests as a result of a long standing allyship between the two countries, yet appear progressive under the guise of a desire for a two-state solution. Although the Liberal and Conservative parties disagree with the other’s foreign policy approach towards the matter, both parties share highly similar views, whereby their platforms emphasize a desire for peace and a fulfilling livelihood for both Palestinians and Israelis alike, whilst simultaneously and exclusively advocating for the right of Israel to exist and defend itself. This staunch pro-Israel policy shared by both parties within Canada is examined and acutely criticized, with the support of various sources including other Canadian party policies and media outlets. The final part of the essay explicates the Canadian Conservative party’s foreign policy, due to its failure to take both Palestinian and Israeli interests into account, and a failure to condemn the wrongdoings of the Israeli government and its policies which are committed disproportionately against Palestinians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, 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 topicJewish and Middle Eastern StudiesFrench-language works237,207