MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285796404 · doi:10.1177/00207020221115442

The origins and early history of Canada’s Cold War scientific intelligence, 1946-65

2022· article· en· W4285796404 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversaryCold warPolitical scienceFraming (construction)PreparednessMilitary scienceGovernment (linguistics)World War IILawMilitary historyHistoryPoliticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the process of creating the policies and structures that led to the formal organization of Canada’s Defence Research Board after the end of the Second World War, senior military and defence officials in Ottawa conceptualized and established a scientific intelligence bureau within the defence department. Recognizing the heightened military significance of science during the war, defence officials believed that scientific intelligence—the practice of analyzing scientific information for forecasting the weapons and warfare potential of enemy countries—could support and improve Canada’s military preparedness efforts in the immediate postwar period. Using recently opened government and military records, this article explores the origins and history of Canadian scientific intelligence during the early Cold War, framing the topic as useful for understanding Canada’s military past and Ottawa’s approach to some of the country’s top security and defence issues of the late 1940s through the mid-1960s.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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