MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149978153 · doi:10.1080/0035853042000300214

The 1939 British and Canadian ‘Empire Air Training Scheme’ negotiations

2004· article· en· W2149978153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Round Table · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionCabinet (room)NegotiationEmpirePrime ministerBritish EmpireLawVariety (cybernetics)Political scienceHistoryEconomic historyPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on events surrounding the Ottawa mission led by Lord Riverdale. Between October and December 1939 the mission met the Canadian Prime Minister William Mackenzie King, his Cabinet and a number of Dominion representatives, its goal to agree on arrangements for the British Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS). This plan would ultimately play a vital role in the British and Dominion war effort, training over 100 000 men for air duties in a variety of theatres of conflict. But, although the negotiations were hailed at their conclusion as having been a great success, the reality was that they were dominated by considerable tensions not just among those present but also between elements within Whitehall and the Canadian leadership. On repeated occasions it appeared that the talks might even collapse and at one stage a constitutional crisis loomed. Far from the success that has since been portrayed to have been the case, the negotiations in fact demonstrated that considerable potential problems existed with regard to the wartime Anglo‐Dominion relationship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0400.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Round TableSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207