MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2329317696 · doi:10.1093/ahr/121.2.591

Matthew Evenden.<i>Allied Power: Mobilizing Hydro-electricity during Canada’s Second World War</i>.

2016· article· en· W2329317696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neil S. Forkey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld War IIEconomic historyHistoryPoliticsPower (physics)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phrase “Canada’s Second World War” conjures many images. There are the high politics of Canadian-American continental defense exemplified by the Ogdensburg Agreement (1940) and the Hyde Park Declaration (1941), as well as the 1943 and 1944 Quebec City conferences between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill (with Canadian prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King playing host). Events between 1939 and 1945 that touched Canada are evoked: Japanese-Canadian internment; the disastrous Dieppe Raid; the conscription crisis; and women in the wartime workforce. In this list of World War II touchstones, however, few would include the expansion of a hydroelectric producing network. That is, until now. Matthew Evenden’s fine study digs deep, in fact into the geologic history of the nation, to unearth a new element of Canada’s contribution during the global conflict. Moreover, it provides a wedge into the study of the environment and warfare in Canada’s past, an area seldom explored by environmental historians.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical Review→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→