MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917160050 · doi:10.21039/rsj.148

George VI’s 1939 Royal Tour of Canada: Context and the Constitution

2018· article· en· W2917160050 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara J. Messamore

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Studies Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionCommonwealthAbdicationConstitutionContext (archaeology)LawPoliticsStatuteSovereign immunityInstitutionPolitical scienceHistoryFellGeographyCartographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has had a long tradition of tours by members of the royal family, beginning with the 1860 visit of the Prince of Wales. But George VI’s 1939 royal tour of Canada was the first by a reigning British monarch, and its real significance can only be fully understood in context. World events, most notably the looming threat from Hitler’s Germany, made Canada’s attachment to the Commonwealth vitally important. Canada’s Prime Minister Mackenzie King revered the Crown but was a prickly Canadian nationalist who was loath to make any defence commitments to the mother country. The institution of the Crown had weathered a series of crises in the period preceding the visit: the 1931 Statute of Westminster marked a fundamental change in the Crown’s relationship to the dominion governments, and the 1936 abdication sullied the sovereign’s image. The 1939 visit also raised the practical issue of how the duties of the Crown ought to be fulfilled when both the king and his dominion representative were present in the dominion. The 1939 visit represented a vital test of the institution of the Crown, and the true import of the five-week tour must be assessed in light of its political, foreign policy, and constitutional significance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Studies JournalSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207