Prepared for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s “Research Paper Series”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jean-Sébastien Rioux’s study on Québec Francophone views on Canadian foreign and defence policy is the first of a series of new research publications that will be published every quarter by the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI). CDFAI is a Calgary-based “think tank ” dedicated to encouraging academic research into issues of Canadian foreign and defence policy. CDFAI’s intent is to circulate that research as widely as possible to policy-makers, community leaders, business leaders, academics, journalists and other Canadians with an interest in Canadian international and military affairs. CDFAI is a federally approved charitable organization that sponsors a variety of projects and programs dedicated to this end. The full range of CDFAI activities can be reviewed on the CDFAI website www.cdfai.org. This paper provides much food for thought and suggests additional areas of research into the little explored subject of how much of an impact Canada’s ethnic, demographic, and regional composition has on the making of Canadian foreign and defence policy. Rioux quite naturally focuses on the prime dichotomy of Canadian life. That dichotomy is based on the founding of Canada on two linguistic groups – English and French-speaking Canadians – and
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.036 |
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".