MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037850389 · doi:10.1080/09592296.2010.508405

Dr. Omond Solandt and Canada's Approach to Defence Research Diplomacy 1946–1956

2010· article· en· W2037850389 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiplomacy and Statecraft · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Science and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacetimeDiplomacyRealmAlliancePolitical scienceCold warPublic administrationLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the early Cold War, Dr. Omond Solandt became Canada's leading defence research diplomat. As Chairman of the newly created Defence Research Board, Canada's first peacetime defence research organisation, Solandt established strong ties with Canada's senior allies, Great Britain and the United States, in the realm of military science and technology. His goal was to harmonise Canada's defence research agenda within this informal science alliance and to gain access to Allied scientific knowledge and technology. Solandt's efforts in maintaining strong and co-operative relations with London and Washington are examined, shedding light on the personal nature of Canada's efforts in the realm of defence research diplomacy, including within the controversial realms of biological warfare.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.346 · 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