MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204783483

The Development of Cold War Soldiery: Acclimatisation Research and Military Indoctrination in the Canadian Arctic, 1947-1953

2015· article· en· W2204783483 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew S. Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndoctrinationLawCold warPolitical scienceAdversaryArcticHistoryPoliticsIdeologyComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1947 and 1953, leading scientists at Canada’s Defence Research Board (drb) administered physiological and psychological experiments on soldiers conducting indoctrination training for Arctic warfare. Designed in an attempt to determine the ideal characteristics of cold-weather soldiery, one experiment resulted in physical and mental injury to two participating troops. Although the army immediately questioned its participation in further drb testing because of the sustained injuries, ethical issues of human testing seemed not to deeply penetrate military and defence discourse concerning the involvement of troops in acclimatisation research and indoctrination training. This article examines cold-weather human testing to argue that the development of Cold War soldiery in Canada conformed to superficial gender ideals about virile masculinity in the early postwar period. “Great physical and mental effort is required under conditions of extreme cold and high windchill to remain aggressive. The cold and unusual conditions of life can, if allowed, impose a heavy strain on morale. Every opportunity must be taken to seek out and destroy the © Canadian Military History 24, no. 2 (Summer/Autumn 2015): 127–155 1 : Acclimatisation Research and Military Indoctrination in the Canadian Arctic, 1947-1953 Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2015 128 The Development of Cold War Soldiery enemy in order to increase the strain on the enemy, to deprive him of rest and time to prepare food, and eventually destroy him.”1 D the early Cold War period, the Canadian Arctic became a training ground for Western forces. Together with American and British counterparts, Canadian troops took part in a series of military exercises, designed to prepare both men and equipment for cold-weather warfare.2 Each exercise aimed specifically to determine infantry requirements as well as the tactical techniques and coordination methods required for military operations in extremely cold winter conditions. The most well-known exercise remains the three-month northern excursion named Operation Musk Ox, which combined Canada-United States military support and reinforced notions that the Canadian Arctic represented the first line of defence against a potential attack on North America.3 Less well-known but also important to the Canadian military and defence establishment was Sun Dog One, a one-month exercise carried out in an effort to deduce and overcome environmental challenges unique to Arctic military operations. Sun Dog One served a scientific as well as military purpose. During the exercise, scientists of Canada’s Defence Research Board 1 As quoted in the final report of Sun Dog One, prepared under the direction of the Chief of General Staff and published by the Directorate of Military Training; see Winter Exercise “Sun Dog One,” RG 24, Volume 4206, File 270-0-89-6, Library and Archives Canada (LAC), 12. 2 The Canadian military participated in no fewer than twenty-two northern operations in the first decade of the Cold War, including exercises “Eskimo,” “Polar Bear,” and “Lemming” (1945); “Musk Ox” (1946); “Moccasin” (1947–1948); “Sigloo” (1948–1949); “Cross Country,” “Sweetbriar,” “Sun Dog One,” and “Shoo Fly One” (1950); “Sun Dog Two,” “Shoo Fly Two,” “Measureall,” and “Pole Star One, Two and Three” (1951–1952); “Sun Dog Three,” “Deer Fly One, Two and Three,” and “Prairie Tundra One” (1952); “Prairie Tundra Two” (1952–1953); and “Bull Dog” (1953); see C.E. Law, J.A. Easterbrook, and M.F. Coffey, Defence Research Board Northern Laboratory: Progress Report on an Assessment of Current Equipment and Methods used by Army Personnel for Ground Navigation in the North, 30 June 1954, RG 85, Volume 299, File 1009-2[5], LAC. For an abbreviated list of Canadian army exercises in the North between 1945 and 1953, including dates, locations, and aims, see Andrew B. Godefroy, In Peace Prepared: Innovation and Adaptation in Canada’s Cold War Army (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2014), 87–88. 3 See Reg Whitaker and Gary Marcuse, Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945–1957 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), 141–142 and Robert Teigrob, Warming up to the Cold War: Canada and the United States’ Coalition of the Willing, from Hiroshima to Korea (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 64–65. 2 Canadian Military History, Vol. 24 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 6 http://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol24/iss2/6

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207