MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116015806 · doi:10.3917/gmcc.223.0017

Le Canada, les canadiens et la guerre d'Indochine : quelques intérêts communs ?

2006· article· fr· W2116015806 on OpenAlex
Magali Deleuze

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGuerres mondiales et conflits contemporains · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Canada, les canadiens et la guerre d’Indochine : quelques intérêts communs ? La naissance de la politique étrangère canadienne dans l’après-Seconde Guerre mondiale arrive à point pour relancer l’intérêt des Canadiens pour la France dans les années 1950. Les soubresauts coloniaux de la IV e République inquiètent le Canada et la guerre d’Indochine constitue le premier conflit de l’après-guerre dans lequel la nouvelle équipe du ministère des Affaires étrangères canadien fera son apprentissage diplomatique. Le Canada rebâtit alors les bases de ses relations avec la France qui constituent un mélange de non-indifférence et de non-ingérence. La reconnaissance des nouveaux États associés d’Indochine, l’aide matérielle militaire à la France et le soutien de l’opinion publique canadienne à la lutte au communisme sont au cœur de la nouvelle politique franco-canadienne. Cette politique est cependant à double tranchant : d’une part, prétendre jouer le rôle d’une nouvelle moyenne puissance, mais, d’autre part, mettre les pieds dans le dangereux piège indochinois.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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