MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045945015 · doi:10.17721/2521-1706.2020.09.13

Perception of the Metropolia by the Canadian Political Elite in 1914–1915 (According to the Materials of the Protocols of the Debates of the Canadian Parliament)

2020· article· en· W3045945015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mykhailo Zapototskyi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican History & Politics Scientific edition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentIdeologyElitePoliticsEmpireLawPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern historical science, an integral component of scientific research is the component of the source base, which also applies to studies in world history. This article is devoted to the analysis of the protocols of the Canadian Parliament’s debates at the initial stage of World War I (1914–1915). The pages of the protocols of the Canadian Parliament’s describe the personal attitude of politicians to Metropolia, the public speeches of Canadian politicians in 1914–1915, the vision of representatives of political elites regarding the entry of the Canadian Confederation into the First World War. Notwithstanding the ideological diversity of Canadian politicians in the early twentieth century, who included both proponents of unity with Metropolia and opponents of the process, it is interesting that the entire political elite at the beginning of the Great War was consolidated in the matter of supporting the British Crown. Even former political opponents – R. Borden and W. Laurier – became ideological partners, who emphasized that Canada should support the British Empire at a difficult time. Importantly, French Canadian politicians, who were in part critical of British imperialism, also took a positive view of Britain. The main ideologue of the French Canadians at this time was considered A. Burassa, who supported Canada’s entry into the First World War. The main issues discussed at this time by parliamentarians were Canada’s military and material support for the armed conflict. Senators J. Bolduk, E. Smith, A. Lougheed, and P. Murphy actively called for the side of the Metropolia. In the article the author draws attention to the fact that politicians were negative about the military conflict itself. Canadian politicians consider German Empire to be the main culprit in the war, which violated Belgium’s sovereignty and started the war. As a result, the UK was forced to go to war, defending the neutrality of the Belgian state. According to most Canadian politicians, Canada’s main task was to support the British Empire.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican History & Politics Scientific editionSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207