MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2318172320 · doi:10.1177/002070201006500407

Review: Essence of Indecision <i>Diefenbaker's Nuclear Policy</i>

2010· article· en· W2318172320 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueNuclear Issues and Defense
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Windsor
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScholarshipPoliticsForeign policyGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSubject (documents)Nuclear weaponSociologyLawPolitical economyLaw and economicsPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ESSENCE OF INDECISION Diefenbaker's Nuclear Policy, 1957-1963 Patricia I. McMahon Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009. 246PP, $85.00 cloth ISBN 978-0-7735-3498-8Five decades after it took place, Canada's nuclear weapons debate of the late1950S and early 60s remains poorly understood. This is a consequence of several factors - the long-standing tendency of Canadian defence scholars and historians to turn their attention elsewhere, the fact that most Canadians have only a limited knowledge of their own history, and perhaps even the discouragement of this country's foreign policy elites (who might prefer that Canadians not know about this entire affair) - but the net result is that the debate and final decision remains a subject of study.Patricia I. McMahon's book, Essence of Indecision, is the most recent attempt to try to make sense of this episode. Building on a relatively smaU body of scholarship (perhaps the best known of which remains Jon McLin's seminal 1967 work Canada's Changing Defence Policy), McMahon chaUenges the consensus view by arguing that Prime Minister John was not indecisive in being unable to determine whether Canada should accept US nuclear weapons during his period in office. Rather, his inability to reach a final decision was the result of considerations. In particular, Diefenbaker's Conservatives were attempting to navigate government waters for the first time in decades, and the prime minister was acutely aware of the political consequences of making the wrong decision. At the same time, the government had come under withering criticism for its decisions on other defence issues (especially establishing NORAD in 1957-58 and cancelling the Avro Arrow in 1959), thereby making the nuclear weapons decision even more difficult.Without question, McMahon's task is not easy. As I and others have written, dithered for virtuaUy his entire tenure as prime minister. Even as his time in office was coming to an end in early 1963, he was still unable to articulate a clear position. His speech in January of that year - intended to clarify his thinking in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis - remains a masterpiece of double talk and obfuscation. During his six years in office, steadily moved from one side of the debate to the other. He spent his first four years laying the groundwork to accept nuclear weapons, but over the last two years of his term he did everything possible to ensure that Canada did not accept the weapons that he had previously said it would.The consensus view is that this change was the result of several factors, three of which stood out. First, appointed Howard Green - a man committed to disarmament - as secretary of state for external affairs in mid1959. Second, contrary to the opinion polls of the day, believed that the majority of Canadians opposed nuclear weapons, a condusion he reached largely by reading his personal mail. Finally, in this period arms control talks between the US and the USSR got underway, the goal of which was general and complete disarmament and an end to nudear testing.McMahon argues that these explanations are insufficient, and that to understand the delay one must first understand Diefenbaker's tenuous political position (even after winning an unprecedented majority in 1958). As the author notes in a critical passage, Diefenbaker feared the potential political fallout that could accompany the acquisition of nuclear weapons... [and this] is what lent an air of indecision to his behaviour (x). According to McMahon, Diefenbaker's delay was understandable, and his recognition of the political risks that nuclear acquisition entailed largely explains his difficulty in coming to a final decision.McMahon insists that always wanted Canada to acquire the weapons, but the timing was never right. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,547
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,917

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,337 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle