Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Diefenbaker has been portrayed as having been out of his league in foreign affairs. In part, his lack of foreign policy successes have been blamed on his poor relationship with Canadian diplomats, who he feared were “Pearsonalities” loyal to former Liberal foreign minister Lester Pearson. Yet, historians have largely dismissed Diefenbaker's suspicions. First revisiting the poor relationship between Diefenbaker and the diplomats, this article then focuses on one highly divisive policy issue: the prime minister's rhetorical war against the Soviet Union, notably a campaign, carried out from 1960–62, to have the un pass a resolution condemning Soviet colonialism. Commentators have been unkind toward this campaign, in part because it was so obviously driven by domestic political calculations but also, and relatedly, because it sparked a feud between the prime minister and Canadian diplomats. As this article makes clear, there were in fact Pearsonalities actively working against Diefenbaker on this issue, a finding that raises questions about the Canadian tradition of civil service loyalty and that fits within the ongoing historiographical trend of adding nuance to the study of Diefenbaker's 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".