Preparing for Peace in Time of War: Canada and the Post-Hostilities Planning Committees, 1943-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Second World War, as the likelihood of Allied success grew, the Canadian Department of External Affairs (DEA) looked towards the post-war world. The increasingly international posture of the Canadian government, coupled with concerns over the shape of the post-war international structure, and Canada's role within it, inspired the Department of External Affairs (DEA) to focus its efforts on postwar planning. For the first time in the DEA's short history, it began to vigorously plan for the future.1 This took the form of Post-Hostilities Planning (PHP) Committees. The PHP framework was not only an exercise in post-war planning, but inter-service and interdepartmental relations. While the three Canadian military services were active participants in the work done, it was dominated by the DEA. Considerations of the military often tended toward more immediate wartime concerns. The PHP committees also served as a means of bringing the services into closer contact and communication with one another. However, political and diplomatic considerations dominated and the services were often sidelined during meetings. Thus, while the Canadian Chiefs of Staff
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".