MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415622378 · doi:10.1177/00207020251393601

The Myth of Trump's transactional foreign policy—and Canada's response

2025· article· en· W4415622378 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert S. Snyder

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForeign policyPresidencyAutocracyTransactional leadershipPoliticsMythologyDemocracyTribute

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of Trump's first presidency in 2017, his foreign policy has been characterized by scholars and journalists as “transactional.” According to this view, he has prioritized short-term economic gains over promoting principles and has been indifferent to other countries’ political systems when dealing with them. This paper argues, however, that since becoming president in 2025, Trump's foreign policy has shifted from a transactional approach to a tributary one—an attempt to create an international system that harkens back to the historic East Asian international system, when other countries had to come to China's capital and pay tribute to the emperor. This paper shows that Trump's tariffs lack a sound economic logic, and that, in contrast to the indifference that characterizes a transactional foreign policy, Trump's approach has favoured autocratic states over democratic ones. It concludes by suggesting that Canada and other traditional allies need to recognize this tributary nature and stiffen their resistance to Trump.

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)0.016
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.036
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207