International Canadian Studies: A Survey of Teaching, Research, and Needed Support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 10 years after the Government of Canada ended its support for the “Understanding Canada” program, international Canadianists have continued to contribute to teaching and conducting research on Canada. During this time, Canadian society has faced significant challenges, including the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and academic debates have questioned the relevance of Canadian Studies as a field of study. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the current state of international Canadian Studies now that international Canadianists are no longer receiving Canadian federal government support. They ask what the current teaching and research agendas of international Canadianists are and what support they need to pursue their scholarship. They surveyed international Canadianists and interviewed executive members of national and regional Canadian Studies associations outside Canada. As this study shows, Canada’s relationship to Indigenous peoples, multiculturalism, immigration, diversity, and the environment are key themes in their teaching and research agendas. To support their teaching, international Canadianists require better access to written materials and opportunities for both themselves and their students to travel to Canada. They also identify grants, opportunities for research collaborations, and participating in conferences, as well as visiting fellowships, as the most important types of support for their research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".