MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114179363 · doi:10.7202/1013980ar

Politics and Defence Research in the Cold War

2013· article· en· W2114179363 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceTransformative learningPoliticsPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)White paperCold warDemobilizationPublic administrationWhite (mutation)International relationsCommissionLawPolitical economyEnvironmental ethicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Defence Research Board (DRB) of Canada is an ideal case study for the operation and organization of science in government. The history of the DRB demonstrates the ebb and flow of government interest in science and defence from 1947 to 1977. This paper traces defence research through its most transformative events: demobilization, the Korean War, the International Geophysical Year, the Glassco Commission, the 1964 White Paper , integration and unification of the Department of National Defence, internal reviews, the 1971 White Paper , the Management Review Group, and the Lamontagne Committee. This sequence of transformative events reveals the importance of politics and personalities to decision-making, and the difficult alliance of scientists with soldiers.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.059
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.258 · 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