‘We Are Pretty Well Dug in Now…’ Canada and the Four-Power Relief Negotiations, 1943
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During WWII, Franklin Roosevelt proposed that Four Policemen—Britain, China, the Soviet Union, and the United States—assume responsibility for global security in the war’s wake. To normalize big-four leadership and increase the likelihood of its acceptance, American postwar planners included a four-power steering committee in the proposal that ultimately led to the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). This four-power committee elicited indignation, most poignantly in Canada, where officials thought Ottawa should be included. This article analyzes and explores both the consequences and implications of Canadian efforts to secure a seat on the UNRRA steering committee in 1943. Canadian scholars have long embedded these efforts in discussions of the functional principle and the middle power. This article, by contrast, situates the story in the larger context of the four-power negotiations that led to UNRRA’s creation. In doing so, it exposes Canada’s importance for the Allied war effort, the creation of postwar international organizations, and great power jockeying for control and influence after the war. It also speaks to a perennial question: how do global governance mechanisms secure their legitimacy?
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".