Writing the History of the Dieppe Raid: The British-Canadian Historical Liaison Relationship in Five Documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of official historian Charles P. Stacey played a foundational role in shaping the historiography of Canada in the Second World War. A lack of access to important archival material guarded by the British Cabinet Office, however, impeded Stacey’s ability to produce the early histories of the war. A struggle for access lasted from late 1947 until 1950; one that would involve diplomatic maneuvering on both sides of the Atlantic. With its convoluted historical record, the 1942 Dieppe Raid acts as an interesting case study to assess the impact of this fight for information. These historical documents and the accompanying commentary highlight the challenges Stacey experienced as he navigated the British-Canadian historical liaison relationship to piece together the origins and objectives of the raid. Les travaux de l’historien officiel Charles P. Stacey ont joué un rôle fondamental dans l’élaboration de l’historiographie du Canada pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Toutefois, le manque d’accès à d’importants documents d’archives gardés par le British Cabinet Office a entravé la capacité de Stacey à produire les premières histoires de la guerre. La lutte pour l’accès, qui a duré de la fin de 1947 jusqu’en 1950, allait engager des manoeuvres diplomatiques des deux côtés de l’Atlantique. En raison de son bilan historique alambiqué, le raid sur Dieppe de 1942 constitue une étude de cas intéressante qui permet d’évaluer les répercussions de cette lutte pour obtenir des informations. Ces documents historiques et les commentaires qui les accompagnent mettent en évidence les défis que Stacey a dû surmonter alors qu’il étudiait les liens historiques entre l’Angleterre et le Canada afin de reconstituer les origines et les objectifs du raid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".