Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada experienced two relatively brief periods of intimacy with “the bomb.” During World War II, Canada was involved in the US-led Manhattan Project. Canada’s wartime experience did not lead to the development of a national nuclear weapons capability but led to the emergence of a domestic nuclear power industry. Ottawa marketed its civil nuclear technology abroad but also professed support for non-proliferation norms and the emergence of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The other period of intimacy, during the 1960s and 1970s, featured acquisition of US nuclear arms both for Canada’s NATO forces in Europe and for North American continental defence. Canada also permitted storage of US nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Not long after accepting four US nuclear weapon systems in 1963 under joint American and Canadian control, Ottawa began relinquishing these recently acquired arms. It retired three of the four weapon systems by the early 1970s and the fourth in 1984. The de-nuclearization was not, as might be conjectured, prompted or influenced by the 1968 NPT. The Canada-US joint custody arrangement was not a case of proliferation given the wording of Article 2 of the Treaty. Canada’s relinquishing was prompted by a rethinking of cold war era nuclear strategies and of international roles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".