The Old Commonwealth and Britain's First Application to Join the EEC, 1961–3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Zealand, Canada, and Australia reacted in different ways to Britain's decision in 1961 to seek membership of the EEC. We show that the umbrage taken by the members of the old Commonwealth was in inverse proportion to the economic interests at stake. Canada, whose trade with Britain was relatively small, adopted a position of violent opposition to British policy. New Zealand, which was still heavily dependent on the UK as a market for staple commodities, was careful to avoid acting in a manner likely to alienate the British government. Australia, which was in an intermediate position as regards the importance of its trade with Britain, mounted a sturdy defence of its commercial interests, but did not indulge in the histrionics of the Canadians. All three of the old dominions were disappointed with the arrangements for Commonwealth trade towards which the UK and the Six were moving when de Gaulle vetoed British membership in January 1963, but at least New Zealand had obtained some special concessions. Whilst it is unlikely that a less combative attitude by Canada and Australia would have resulted in a better outcome for these countries, a more belligerent approach on the part of New Zealand would have put its economic future in even greater jeopardy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".