US-Canada Relations in the 1950s - 1980s: Consensus or Disagreement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the article is to finalize the impact of the relationship between the USA and Canada on the Canadian foreign policy in 1957-1984. The author focuses the reader’s attention on analysis of trends in the relations between USA and Canada, as well as the identification of the patterns of their further development. Based on the use of an appropriate historical sources and scientific literature, the article gives an idea of the characteristic features of the relationship between the USA and Canada during the premierships of John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau. When writing an article, the author uses a comparative historical method, as well as an interdisciplinary approach. The first allows us to compare the development of the relations between USA and Canada in 1957-1984. The latter shows the influence of the relationship between USA and Canada on the activities of political parties in Canada. The scientific contribution of the author of the article is that for the first time in Russian historiography, he considers not just the general directions of Canada’s foreign policy, but analyzes the key of them - the relationship between USA and Canada, its evolution and dynamics. The author comes to the conclusion that the periodization of the relationship between USA and Canada reflected the complexity of their development, and the anti-americanism of Diefenbaker and Trudeau had no deep foundation. Firstly, it was the result of Diefenbaker’s personal grievances against Kennedy. Secondly, Trudeau demonstrated that Canada’s foreign policy has an independent character. However, this did not mean his departure from the relationship between USA and Canada as a major.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".