MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414144961 · doi:10.5206/sc.v14i1.23002

Trudeau's Refusal to Take a Stance on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

2025· article· en· W4414144961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Wodchis-Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Social Contract · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcuseContradictionAction (physics)Foreign policyVotingHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having gained immense traction in worldwide media throughout the last decade, the Israel-Palestine conflict has been cause for immense partisanship, with many world leaders being forced to take a stance on the issue - either publicly or with their voting decisions at the United Nations. This paper investigates the conflict itself and contextualizes Canada’s foreign policy towards Israel while under Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, and eventually Stephen Harper. Following this, it discusses the current Liberal Party’s stance on the conflict, comparing it to perspectives of their opposition. Further, it directly compares the party’s policies to Justin Trudeau’s statements and actions, and in doing so demonstrates the glaring discrepancies between the two. Using these analyses, the paper provides a critique of Trudeau’s lack of direct action despite his clear desire to present himself as a bipartisan leader of peace on the world stage, with this contradiction only working to excuse Israel’s countless human rights violations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.036
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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