TC 7.2014: CALL FOR PAPERS / APPEL À CONTRIBUTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's place in the world, its international status and influence have long been the topics of political and academic discourse and served as research themes for scholars representing various academic disciplines (history, political science, sociology, philosophy, linguistics, literature and culture studies).Until the end of the Cold War, however, the prevailing approach to evaluating the roles countries could play internationally focused mostly on the so called hard power criteria (i.e. military and economic factors).Given its rather limited military potential and overwhelming dependence on trading with the United States, Canada tended to be treated either as a mere satellite of much stronger partners or at best was assigned the status of a middle power.Few Canadian analysts, let alone non-Canadian observers, believed Canada could ever become a major actor on the world stage.Nevertheless, in the increasingly globalized, economically integrated and interconnected post-Cold War world, focusing merely on military and material determinants can provide a very limited insight into the complexity of the roles countries can play in the modern global system.Obviously, economic stability,
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".