THE EVOLUTION OF CANADIAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD THE MIDDLE EAST (1945-67)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to trace the nature of the growth of Canadian foreign policy toward the Middle East over a period of 22 years. The major argument is that Canada developed a Middle East policy indirectly through the United Nations rather than on the basis of state-to-state relations. This policy may be analyzed in the context of the following : (i) United Nations conflict resolution procedures; (ii) great-power politics; (iii) Canada's relations with its three major allies, the US, Britain and France; (iv) subsequent to 1955-56, Canada's commercial and diplomatic stateto-state relationships with countries in the area. In this essay, the period under review (1945-67) is divided into following three phases, (i) 1945-48 : The significant aspect of this period was the emergence of the United Nations, and Canada's adherence to its Charter. Canada as a middle power began to develop a mediatory role and part of its initial experience in the United Nations related to the conflict regarding the partition of Palestine, (ii) 1948-55 : During this period, the changing strategies of the superpowers, in the context of the Palestine Partition plan, undermined the ability of the United Nations to maintain peace. The substance of the discussion concerning this period will therefore deal with the impact of great-power politics on Canada's mediatory behavior in the United Nations, (iii) 1956-67 : The Suez crisis and the formation of UNEF marked a turning point in Canada s Middle East policy. The stationing of its troops under UNEF provided Canada with a direct military presence in the area. However, the withdrawal of the UNEF in 1967 was a severe setback
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".