Canada's human security foreign policy : illuminating the role of ideas in soft power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study entitled, Canada’s Human Security Foreign Policy: Illuminating the Role of Ideas in Soft Power, investigates the role of ideational factors in explaining foreign policy outcomes. Specifically, it examines the context of Canada’s human security foreign policy development from 1996-2001 under former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. Viewing human security as an idea or political leitmotif allows a more profound understanding of policy, its connection to soft power strategies, and the successful adoption of international human security treaties. To date, most research on human security has asserted the wide depth and scope of its conceptual boundaries make it problematic as a policy tool. Opposing claims have been forwarded as to Canada’s success in human security policy creation and implementation. The study seeks to interrogate these opposing claims in order to push the debates that exist in the literature forward. It is argued that Canada’s human security foreign policy serves to throw into question claims concerning the ineffectiveness of human security as a policy tool, whereby Canada’s use of soft power strategy in pursuit of specific human security issues has allowed it to gain greater power in international affairs. Moreover, a focus on ideational factors that allow for power enhancement to occur serve to push Joseph S. Nye’s initial conceptualization of soft power forward within a wider taxonomy of power dynamics. Illustrated through efforts in developing and implementing its human security foreign policy, the explicit connection between ideas and soft power becomes paramount to understanding the Canadian case. Albeit an idea that informs policy in bounded issue-based contexts, human security and its connection to soft power informs both policy research and academic literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".