MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963008660

Taking Care of Business: Canada’s Forgotten Cold War Conflict in Cyprus, July-August, 1974

2009· article· en· W1963008660 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David A. Kielstra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacekeepingCold warPeacemakingPolitical scienceAssertivenessNegotiationNarrativeCrisis responseHistoryLawPublic relationsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s response to the Cyprus crisis of 1974 represents a little known event in Canadian Cold War peacekeeping history. Following a coup on the island, two NATO allies were on the verge of war while the United Nation’s Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) wrestled to deal with the unfolding crisis. This paper places the experiences of Canada’s contingent in UNFICYP alongside Canada’s domestic response for a holistic assessment of Canada’s Cyprus actions. Unique material including veteran interviews, diplomatic documents, and UN radio logs also provide a more personal narrative. It was determined that the more robust form of peacekeeping practiced in Cyprus was a key measure to prevent further violence. Canada’s decision to dramatically bolster its UNFICYP presence through reinforcements and heavy weaponry also challenges the long-held assumption of a Trudeau-era withdrawal from international commitments. The Cyprus crisis clearly represents an assertive step forward for Canadian peacemaking on the world stage during the Cold War.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0420.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207