It Was Supposed to Be Blue: Roads Not Taken with the Canadian Armed Forces Naval Jack, 1967-68
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Armed Forces Naval Jack, which is today the Canadian Naval Ensign, went through a far more complicatedgestation in 1967 than has heretofore been recognized. Using the minutes of two meetings of the Defence Council conducted in the middle of 1967 and other contemporary documents, this commentary examines the process by which today’s design was created, discarded, and taken up again. These discussions also provide essential context to an otherwise puzzling passage in the memoirs of the chief of the defence staff at the time, General Jean V. Allard. Le Pavillon de marine des Forces armées canadiennes, renommé le Pavillon naval canadien, a connu un développement beaucoup plus compliqué en 1967 que ce qu’on avait reconnu jusqu’ici. À l’aide des procès-verbaux de deux réunions du Conseil de la défense tenues au milieu de 1967 et d’autres documents contemporains, cet commentaire examine le processus selon lequel la conception que nous connaissons aujourd’hui a été créée, abandonnée puis reprise. Ces propos fournissent également un contexte essentiel à un extrait par ailleurs déroutant des mémoires du chef de l’état-major de la défense de l’époque, le général Jean V. Allard.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".