MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072688647 · doi:10.7202/030970ar

The Politics of Food in World War II: Great Britain’s Grip on Canada’s Pacific Fishery

2006· article· en· W2072688647 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dianne Newell

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationChristian ministryGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsBusinessInternational tradeSpanish Civil WarFisheryEconomyPolitical scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining and transporting food supplies during wartime are crucial activities. How to fulfill these obligations often is an important point in determining a government's wartime trade strategy. An example is the case of Great Britain during World War II. Britain attempted to control the cost and quality of its imported foodstuffs by influencing the production, supply and price within supplying countries. British food missions were established to negotiate the best-possible agreements and to protect Britain's long-term commercial interests. This self-interest can be seen in the food programme established by the British Ministry of Food and in the negotiations with British Columbia packers for canned salmon. Britain needed this nutritious and practical foodstuff, but refused to enter into longterm contracts with Canadian suppliers. The British Columbia salmon was considered too expensive, and Britain wanted to return to the cheaper Japanese and Russian suppliers after the war. The ultimate result was that the BC salmon canning industry was seriously curtailed at war's end, and the very existence of the resource was threatened.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207