Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Americans are our best friends whether we like it or not Robert Thompson, the Social Credit Party I would like to present some selected problems of U. S. -Canada relations and dem onstrate how important they are in order to understand Canada, its policies and Canadian complexes.In order to understand Canada, one of the options is to con trast its actions with those of the United States.I have mostly relied on materials available in Poland or on the Internet.At the beginning it is worth noting that the problem of U. S. -Canada relations is widely discussed in literature.This literature is mostly Canadian, since this problem is generally ignored by American researchers while Canadians are almost obsessively interested in this topic.Americans believe that their relations with Canada form only part of their foreign policy and that this problem arises only at times of important events (e. g.World War II, integration of North American economies, signing of the NAFTA treaty).On the other hand, in Canada this issue is regarded as a separate problem.In their book entitled Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies, J. H. Thompson and S. J. Randall clearly suggest that it is one of the effects of the imbalance that exists between the two states."The asymmetry in the bilateral relationship is reflected in a number of ways, among them the imbalance between the relative attention Canadian and American scholars give to the relationship.An observer of the professional literature in history or political science would be struck by the prodigious industry of Canadian scholars who specialize in the study of what they call 'Canadian-American relations', and by the prevailing neglect on the American side."1
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.038 |
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".