Simple Shelters?: Monitoring Radioactive Fallout Across Canada, 1959–63
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the early Cold War, the Canadian government advised the public that they could cheaply build fallout shelters in their homes to protect their families from radiation after a nuclear war. Publicly, the government stayed out of the shelter-building business, citing that the cost was too high. However, from 1959 to the mid1960s, the Canadian Army secretly constructed a network of 2,000 fallout shelters in government buildings: the Nuclear Detonation and Fallout Reporting System. This article explores the origins of this network and the reasons for its decline. Resume : Au debut de la guerre froide, le gouvernement canadien a informe la population qu’elle pouvait construire a faible cout des abris antinucleaires dans leur maison afin de proteger leur famille d’eventuelles retombees nucleaires apres une guerre nucleaire. Publiquement, le gouvernement s’est tenu a l’ecart de la construction de ces abris en affirmant que le cout aurait ete trop eleve pour lui. Cependant, de 1959 au milieu des annees 1960, l’Armee canadienne a secretement construit un reseau de 2 000 abris antinucleaires dans des immeubles gouvernementaux : le Nuclear Detonation and Fallout Repor t ing System (systeme de declaration de detonation nucleaire et d’abris). Cet article explore les origines de ce reseau et les raisons de son declin. Simple Shelters? Monitoring Radioactive Fallout Across Canada, 1959-63
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".