Problems of security and defense of the British Commonwealth at the 1937 Imperial Conference: Canada's position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents an analysis of the views of the canadian delegation on security and defense issues within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations at the 1937 imperial conference. The contradictions between canada's position and Britain's attempts to establish closer cooperation within the Commonwealth to ensure imperial defense in the event of war are revealed. The approaches of other "white" dominions, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, to current international political and military-strategic issues are considered, which allows them to be compared with the canadian point of view. Special attention is paid to the factor of public opinion in Canada, since a significant part of canadian society, especially the french canadian minority, was opposed to the involvement of the dominion in military conflicts abroad, which was taken into account by the canadian establishment when developing a foreign policy line. It is also shown that one of the factors influencing Canada's position was the isolationist policy of the United States, with which the dominion actively developed extensive economic and political ties. During the writing of the article, the author turned to both special historical methods and used the tools of the theory of international relations. The problem of Canada's position at the 1937 imperial conference on the security and defense of the British Commonwealth was practically ignored in Russian historiography, which prompted the author to fill in this gap in the history of, on the one hand, the transformation of the British Empire, on the other – in the prehistory of the Second World War. In this study, we rely on a wide range of diverse sources, represented by canadian, english and american documents of an official and personal nature. We conclude that the evasive position of the canadian establishment was the result of a breakdown in the coordination of the Commonwealth's defense policy and one of the factors contributing to Britain's policy of appeasing aggressors during the crisis of the Versailles-Washington system of international relations during the interwar period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".