Civil-Military Relations: The Case of Canada and the Cuban Missile Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was an unprecedented event and turning point during the Cold War. This thesis examines the relatively unknown Canadian military involvement in the crisis, and why it has remained so for the past fifty-eight years. Canadian reaction and involvement centres around the hours after President John F. Kennedy’s television address to the world on October 22nd, 1962, as the United States (US) military went into defense readiness condition three (DEFCON 3) alert, where 5 is ‘normal’, and 1 indicates ‘nuclear war is imminent’. The complication and nexus of this thesis, starts when the Canadian Minister of National Defence (MND) Doug Harkness, went to Prime Minister (PM) John G. Diefenbaker to request a comparable alert status for Canadian Forces, and was denied. Harkness subsequently advised his Chairman (CCOS) and the three service military chiefs (COS) to ‘quietly’ prepare, as he continued for the next two and one-half days to seek authority to match the American alert status. Diefenbaker finally agreed to match the US military alert status on October 24th, 1962, after they went to DEFCON 2, but he only agreed to match DEFCON 3. Since then, Harkness has been continuously scapegoated for putting the military on full alert without authority. This became the alleged breakdown in civil-military relations (CMR) that appears to have also tainted the Canadian military. There is little to substantiate an actual breach of CMR here, other than at the highest levels of military leadership.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".