MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W646122059 · doi:10.5860/choice.40-0490

Canadian policy toward Khrushchev's Soviet Union

2002· article· en· W646122059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoviet unionPolitical scienceVictoryDemocratizationContext (archaeology)Cold warForeign policyPolitical economyLiberalizationAccommodationGlobalizationWorld War IIEconomic historyDemocracyLawSociologyHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

He details how the St Laurent government backed the shrewd calculations of the Department of External Affairs and emphasized the wisdom of the containment-accommodation approach, an approach that, Glazov claims, would help win the Cold War thirty-five years later. Glazov shows that the strategy of accommodation, the main difference between Canadian and American Soviet policy, was ultimately vindicated by the eventual ascendancy of a liberal Soviet leader (Gorbachev), which led to increased East-West contact and Soviet liberalization, phenomena that led directly to the West's victory in the Cold War. Glazov's new assessment of Western policies toward Khrushchev's Russia is critical to our understanding of present-day Russia, since Gorbachev's democratization, which led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, had its origins in the Khrushchev thaw. Canadian Policy toward Khrushchev's Soviet Union provides vital information to help answer the question of how the West should deal with Russia, especially in the context of globalization - one of the most urgent issues facing Canada and the Western world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207