MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952189757 · doi:10.5771/9780810864634

Historical Dictionary of Cold War Counterintelligence

2007· book· en· W2952189757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nigel West

Bibliographic record

VenueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks · 2007
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintelligenceCold warHistoryPolitical scienceComputer scienceComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The defection of Igor Gouzenko in September 1945, more so than any other single event, alerted the West to the nature and scale of the Soviet espionage offensive being waged by the Kremlin. Apart from the dozen or so defendants convicted of spying, Gouzenko wrecked an organization that had taken years to develop, exposed the penetration of the Manhattan atomic weapons project, and demonstrated the very close relationship between the Canadian Communist Party and Moscow. Many credit this event as sparking the bitter but secretive struggle fought between the intelligence agencies of the East and West for nearly half a century. The Historical Dictionary of Cold War Counterintelligence tells the story of both sides' fierce efforts to penetrate and subvert the opponent while desperately trying to avoid a similar fate. Through a chronology, an introduction, appendixes, a bibliography, and hundreds of cross-referenced dictionary entries on the organizations, operations, events, and personalities that influenced counterintelligence during the Cold War, the world of double agents, spies, and moles is explained in the most comprehensive reference currently available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.023

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooksSame topicIntelligence, Security, War StrategyFrench-language works237,207