Канада и Австралия на конференции в Сан-Франциско 1945 г. : на пути к лидерству среди Средних держав
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentations of delegations of Canada and Australia at the conference in San Francisco in 1945, partly identified them as Middle Power countries are reviewed. The performance, defining features of the delegations, the nature and consequences of their actions are compared. The image, created by Canada and Australia during the conference is also considered. It played a significant role in the further development of the concept of Middle Powers. The Canadian delegation in San Francisco has shown itself as a country, which is able to make quite sensible, informed decisions. Canada went to the victim in a position of the leader of the Middle Powers in favor of international stability. While Australian leaders chose to create a new, strong image of Australia which did not match the world’s reality. Of course, each country’s intentions were quite obvious. But what turned out to be the most advantageous solution Canada’s bet for long-term benefit from the “small victories” in favor of global cooperation and the common good or just an Australian attempt to get an instant recognition by the international community as one of its most important actors?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".