MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1418579691

A National Force: The Evolution of Canada's Army, 1950-2000

2015· article· en· W1418579691 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew B. Godefroy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe US Army War College Quarterly Parameters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanish Civil WarLawOperational level of warScholarshipWorld War IINarrativeMilitary historyPolitical scienceHistorySociologyRed Army's tactics in World War II
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A National Force: The Evolution of Canada's Army, 1950-2000 By Peter Kasurak Vancouver, B.C. Canada: University of British Columbia Press, 2013. 348 pages $95.00 [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The history of Canada's civil-military relationship after end of Second World War is a complex story, parts of which remain largely untold. Having started war as a significant yet still subordinate ally to British Empire, Canada emerged from war with a new voice of independence shaped in part by its wartime relationship with United States. Still, for much of Cold War Canada's military forces found themselves split between its British traditions and an emerging American way of warfare resulting from latter's dominant role in cooperative defence of North America, Korean War, and NATO's defence of Western Europe. In his most recent work, A National Force: The Evolution of Canada's Army, 1950-2000, independent scholar Peter Kasurak offers a broad and sweeping narrative of Canadian Army's history from Korean War to beginning of War on Terror. While general histories of Canadian Army are nothing new, Kasurak's study is very different from previous offerings in its analysis of chosen subject. Departing from what he describes as the standard narrative of army's history, Kasurak sets out to reframe a story often viewed through lens of Samuel Huntington's Soldier and State with perspective of Peter Feaver's Armed Servants. The exercise is novel and intriguing, if not at times outright controversial, with results often at odds with established scholarship on subject. The history of postwar Canadian Army is typically divided into two eras. The period from 1945 to unification of Canadian military in 1968 has at times been referred to as command era, followed afterwards by what many critics have referred to as a era. The former is often perceived as a golden age of Canadian Army--British roots, influential, worldly, combat experienced, and professional. The latter - during which army was integrated with other two armed services into a single unified service, ushered in what one military historian later described as a generation of professional decline. In post-unification Canadian Army values had been replaced with civilian business management concepts. British traditions and ethos were discarded. It is this established narrative that Kasurak takes aim at, and using Feaver's agency theory sets out to demonstrate it was in fact not civilian leadership but rather army that was the author of its own decline, beginning not after unification but instead right after Second World War. Any attempt to recast a military organization's historical characteristics and attributes so significantly in a single study is bound to run into difficulty, and Kasurak's book is no exception. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe US Army War College Quarterly ParametersSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207