Collaborer avec le Commonwealth? Les relations canado-britanniques et la détention de guerre au Canada, 1940–1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the detention of German prisoners of war in Canada between 1940 and 1945. More specifically, it examines Canada-UK relations regarding this wartime captivity. Relatively unexamined in historiography, relations between Ottawa and London concerning the treatment of enemy prisoners reveals the political dynamic existing between the two Commonwealth allies as the conflict progressed. Examining intra-Commonwealth relations surrounding the issue of German prisoners and its consequences allows us to highlight the interactions as the basis of this cooperation, and the constraints they imposed on the Canadian government. In so doing, the study shows that the position imposed by the War Office in London regarding its authority over the detention in Canada was strongly questioned by Canadian authorities. These authorities went so far as to reject certain British policies by invoking Canada's national sovereignty. The nationalism defended by the Mackenzie King government, that is the duality of the predominance of Canadian interests and Ottawa's contribution to the allied war effort, clearly influenced the Dominion's positions and its relations with Great Britain. Through discussions about the detention of German soldiers in Canada between 1940 and 1045, Canada's international status emerges as a central issue.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".