MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230760945 · doi:10.1017/9781787449350.004

The CPRA and Angolan Refugees in the DRC, 1961–1967

2020· other· en· W4230760945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePortugueseOffensiveDemocracyPolitical scienceColonialismAncient historyEthnologyEconomic historyPrideEmigrationHuman settlementHistoryLawPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 1961, Canadian pastor James Ormiston visited Angolan refugee settlements in the Bas-Congo province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Three months earlier, rebel forces of the UPA (União dos Povos de Angola) had launched a surprise attack on Portuguese settlers in northern Angola. The Portuguese colonial government led a counter-offensive. Mission-educated intellectuals and poor farmers alike became the victims of the brutal crackdown by Portuguese settlers and solders. ‘I have had to face the fact that the Portuguese really are slitting children's throats and chopping the hands and feet and heads off people. It is a chilling realisation that so-called civilised people can sink so far down their own offal of self-pride and self-pity,’ Ormiston wrote to the United Church of Canada (UCC) mission board secretary. Ultimately, several hundred thousand Angolans fled to the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1961 and 1965. This chapter focuses on the political dimensions of CPRA aid in its support of the UPA, later known as the FNLA (Frente Nacional de Libertação de Angola) from 1961 until 1967, when CPRA staff member David Grenfell retired. Grenfell committed himself to collaborating with FNLA leader Holden Roberto. Despite the ostensibly apolitical nature of the CPRA, Grenfell's meticulous monitoring of refugee movements from Angola to the DRC reinforced FNLA's control of Angolan people. The British missionary made Angolans legible as citizens of FNLA's government in exile through a complicated system of ration cards. In addition, he and other CPRA staff regulated how FNLA officials and soldiers gave out permits to refugees seeking to escape Angola. The CPRA also procured food and supplies for refugees under FNLA's administration. CPRA advocacy for FNLA extended to public relations abroad as Grenfell supplied favourable information about Roberto and his movement to international donor organisations and mission boards. Organisations such as the CWS (Church World Service) and the UCC funded relief for Angolan refugees. However, not all aid workers supported Grenfell's approval of Roberto. Ian Gilchrist, a Canadian doctor who worked directly for the FNLA rather than the CPRA, became embittered with the FNLA elite to the point Roberto tried to have Gilchrist arrested in June 1965. Other CPRA staff smuggled Gilchrist out of the DRC, even as Grenfell remained sympathetic to Roberto.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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 topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207