MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019723782 · doi:10.11575/prism/37710

'No Objection': Canadian Arms Exports to Asia, 1946-1958

2020· dissertation· en· W3019723782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joel Samuel Montagnes

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeArms controlPolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the end of the Second World War, Canada had one of the largest militaries amongst the Allied nations. However, given the quantity of weapons possessed by the Canadian Military after the Second World War, it begs the question, what happened to all of Canada’s “surplus” weapon kits? Recently declassified Privy Council and Department of External Affairs documents reveal that Canada was consciously exporting surplus weapons to countries around the world, particularly to China and South-East Asia in the early Cold War period from approximately 1946 through 1958. These documents also reveal that Canada was exporting arms to both Communist and anti-Communist factions; sometimes to both factions in the same countries! This thesis argues that through its arms exports practices to China and South East Asia during the late 1940s and 1950s, Canada was actively agitating proxy wars in the region with little regard if such exports violated UN, NATO, American or British policies regarding aggression by Communist states or Communist factions. My thesis will focus on arms exports from Canada to: China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Indo-China, Thailand, India and Pakistan.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207