Decoding the canada's foreing and security policy: tracking the strategic and ethicliberal approaches of a middle power's behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article attempts to explain the main paradox faced by Canada at formulating its foreign policy on international security. Explained in economic and political terms, this paradox consists in the contradiction between the Canadian ability to achieve its strategic goals, serving to its own national interest and its dependence on the United States. The first section outlines three representative examples to evaluate this paradox: the Canada’s position in North American security regime, the US-Canada economic security relations, and the universe of possibilities for action of Canada as a middle power. The second section suggests that liberal agenda, especially concerning to ethical issues, has been established by this country to minimize this paradox. By pursing this agenda, Canada is able to reaffirm its national identity and therefore its independence on the United States. The third section evaluates both the explained paradox and the reaffirmation of Canadian identity during the Jean Chrétien (1993-2003), Paul Martin (2003-2006) and Stephen Harper’s (2006) governments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".