MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam in the Population Exchange between Vietnamese States during Years 1954–1955

2019· article· en· W2981447510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jarema Słowiak

Bibliographic record

VenuePrace Historyczne · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseCommissionPolitical sciencePopulationControl (management)DemographySociologyLawEconomicsManagementLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Geneva Agreements dividing Vietnam were reached in the early morning hours of 21 July 1954, the Article 14(d) of those accords was considered to be a minor, technical one. It guaranteed free movement of people between opposite sides' zones, so they could move to the half of Vietnam they preferred. The authorities in both the South and the North didn't expect more than several tens of thousands of people. Instead, the South was fl ooded with a vast wave of refugees, numbering in hundreds of thousands. Geneva Conference also established the International Commission for Supervision and Control, composed of India, Canada and Poland, to oversee the implementation of the Geneva Accords in Indochina. One of its most important tasks was to supervise the aforementioned free movement of people. In this article, I would like to show how internal diff erences between the countries making the ICSC aff ected the supervision of Article 14(d), particularly in respect of activities of communist side, which actively tried to prevent people from leaving North Vietnam.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrace HistoryczneSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207