MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416971816 · doi:10.3138/chr.3241

Sound and Fury: Diefenbaker, Human Rights, and Canadian Foreign Policy

2016· article· en· W2416971816 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Asa McKercher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceForeign policyInternational human rights lawRhetoricPraiseLawContext (archaeology)CommunismFundamental rightsPoliticsHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking account of recent attention both to Canada's human rights history and to efforts to provide more nuanced examinations of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's time in office, this article explores the place of human rights in Diefenbaker's foreign policy. In doing so, it examines the international context of Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and other domestic achievements and looks also at the prime minister's handling of South African apartheid, the issue of self-determination as it emerged at the United Nations, and rights violations in Communist countries. Concluding that there are some grounds to praise Diefenbaker, it argues, though, that the fiery prairie populist's rhetoric rarely matched reality. Despite considerable sound and fury, Diefenbaker's promotion of human rights broke little ground in terms of making the protection of rights a major focal point in Canadian foreign policy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207