China Papers No. 6 Canada in China’s Grand Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
www.conseilinternationalducanada.org China Papers No. 6 The twisted course of Sino-Canadian relations since the Harper Conservative government acceded to power in January 2006 has rightly focused attention on the foundations of our bilateral relationship. This paper ventures a look at the basis of the bilateral relationship from the Chinese perspective. It looks at the overall objectives of China’s political and diplomatic strategy, how Chinese policy is made and the explicit and implicit place allotted to Canada within China’s overall foreign policy. Canada’s place in China’s grand strategy will be approached from two directions: the role assigned to bilateral relations with Canada as found in various Chinese foreign policy announcements and the potential role for Canada within the overall objectives of China’s grand strategy. The paper also looks at the scale of cooperation under present conditions versus the scope for cooperation that could be articulated as compatible with China’s overall foreign policy objectives consistent with Canadian foreign policy goals and objectives. The Canadian experience is offset by brief comparisons with France and Australia and some suggestions are offered on how to anchor the bilateral relationship on a sounder and more stable framework that takes into account Canada’s unique opportunities given China’s changing place in the global balance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.004 |
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".