MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165506253

Water and Canada’s bilateral telations with the United States

2008· other· en· W7165506253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Delia Montero

Bibliographic record

VenueMiCISAN · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Agency (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O ne of the Canadian government's political and economic priorities has always been its bilateral relations with the United States.In the last decade, however, it has incorporated another issue regarding its biggest trade partner: security, specifically in the framework of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).Undoubtedly, this alliance reaffirms Canada's political and economic relationship with the U.S. government, which is alive and well despite being quite asymmetrical.1 Both political and economic forces have managed to remain stable, not only because they share one of the longest borders in the world, where 80 percent of the Canadian population lives and which includes the Great Lakes, one of the world's biggest reserves of fresh water (18 percent), but also because of the dynamism of trade.The proximity, the language, growing investments, Canada's natural resources, etc., have fostered among other things very dynamic trade along the world's longest non-militarized border.2 Naturally, it has also forged ample cooperation with Canada's southern neighbor through different accords like the 2001 intelligent border agreement, the establishment of the Binational Planning Group in 2002 and the 2005 joint declaration about common security and prosperity, among others.3 The main points on the bilateral agenda cluster around three key issues for the two economies: defense, trade and development.This ensures that efforts are not diluted in too 97

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiCISANFrench-language works237,207