Forging new identities : explaining success and failure in Canadian arms control initiatives 1990-2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Great Powers are often thought to be the most influential actors in terms of international arms control efforts, during the 1990s Canada showed itself capable of successfully leading several arms control initiatives. This research sets out to (a) explain why Canada has been able to enjoy these successes while other recent Canadian arms control leadership efforts have failed, and (b) further the abstract thinking around Canadian foreign policy. This is done by introducing the Identity Management model of arms control to explain the process by which Canadian arms control processes succeed or fail, and testing it against four post-Cold War Canadian-led initiatives: the Open Skies initiative, the landmines initiative, the MOX fuel initiative, and the small arms initiative. Within the Identity Management model, Canada is classified as an Activist State, a categorisation that rejects and improves upon the popular, yet heavily flawed, Middle Power concept. Blending together critical insights from realism and constructivism, the Identity Management model focuses on the foreign policy preferences of states, distinguishing between the preferences of Great Powers, such as the United States, and the preferences of Activist States. The foreign policy preferences of Activist States are designed and promoted by important elite domestic actors, and expressed as the country's chosen identity on a given arms control issue. The Identity Management model thus postulates that while states such as Canada can express independent policy initiatives, these identities are offered up into the international system, the character of which is defined by the foreign policy preferences of Great Powers. Overall, the Identity Management model establishes that Canadian arms control initiatives are successful only when Canada's chosen identity accurately reflects the constantly changing character of the international system.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".