MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Ambiguous Welcome: Vietnam Draft Resistance, the Canadian State, and Cold War Containment

2017· dataset· en· W1484819175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe SHAFR Guide Online · 2017
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitarismImmigrationPolitical scienceOpposition (politics)LawState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Independence (probability theory)Resistance (ecology)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant portion of the growth in American immigration to Canada from the mid- 1960s to the mid-1970s was a consequence of the Vietnam War. For the Canadian government, the appearance of large numbers of draft resisters at the border was a boon. Draft resisters, if not deserters, tended to be young, middle-class, and educated — the very type of immigrant the government wanted. Allowing entry to draft resisters also reaped an important symbolic benefit in that it allowed the Canadian government to demonstrate its independence from the United States and its opposition to the war. In practice, however, not all young Americans resisting militarism were welcomed. Government officials argued contradictory interpretations of the policy on admitting draft resisters and deserters and their legal status in Canada. The Cold War and the increased domestic concerns generated by student and protest movements in the 1960s also solidified cooperation between the American and Canadian security states in maintaining a surveillance of draft resisters and deserters.

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)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.012

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 head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe SHAFR Guide OnlineSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207