The Bottlenecks of German-Canadian Dialogue in the Sphere of Security and Defence: Features and Reasons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Germany and Canada are member states of NATO and the G7, but bilateral interstate cooperation in the sphere of security and defence, in terms of volume and quality, can hardly be called advanced. It is particularly remarkable, taking to account the contribution of each country to efforts to Westernize the newly emerging world order. The article explores the bottlenecks of the dialogue in political and military fields, as its determinants. The methods of comparative and dialectical analyses are used. At the end of the 2010s – the first half of the 2020s, there have been at least three “windows of opportunity” for the improving interstate relations. The first was connected with each side's concern about the U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump (2017–2021). The second “window of opportunity” was caused by the growing involvement of NATO member states in “deterring” Russia and supporting Ukraine. The third was connected with Germany`s interest in strategically establishing a presence in the Arctic. However, none of those potential opportunities were realized. The article reveals the reasons specific to each case and the general determinant, which is the military-strategic peculiarity of Canada compared to European continental NATO member states. The importance of this factor is illustrated through the example of Canadian troops` involvement in the NATO frontier zone in the 1980s and since the mid 2010-s. The article concludes with perspectives of the German-Canadian dialogue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".