Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first decades of the twenty-first century witnessed a surge of interest in the "long sixties." 1 The sixties continue to hold meaning for those who lived through them and for a new generation of Canadians seeking fresh interpretations of later developments that bear a striking resemblance to the events of that famous decade.While researching this book, when I was asked about my research topic, I frequently replied that it was about Canadian support for Vietnam-era American war resisters.Often -in fact, almost always -upon hearing this, the questioner would tell me that he or she had known a draft dodger while growing up or had been acquainted with a war resister.Similarly, people whom I have talked to about this book and who later describe my project to someone else tend to say that it is about "draft dodgers." They transformed my analysis of Canadian support for resisters into a study of the war resisters themselves.This may seem like a minor distinction, but I think it says a lot about the strength of the myth of Canada as a haven for war resisters.This myth is so strong that the support dimension of the story is easily dismissed; after all, part of the myth is that Canada has always been such a haven.There is an assumption that support for the war resisters would have been automatic, homogeneous, and unproblematic from all levels of society and that no movement to support resisters should have been necessary.I share Daniel Francis's view that to interrogate and question myths is not to suggest that there is no truth to them. 2 Rather, the aim is to unravel, question, and fill in the gaps -to make the picture of the myth as complete as possible.This research shows that the experience of war resisters in Canada in the late 1960s and early 1970s, during which time the haven myth was entrenched, was actually
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.584 | 0.387 |
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".