CFB Goose Bay and Operation âDesert Shieldâ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada committed forces to the American-led Coalition in the 1990–1991 campaign to liberate Kuwait (Operation DESERT SHIELD and Operation DESERT STORM). The Navy played an important role in the naval portion in this campaign known as Operation DESERT STORM. Canadian CF-18s provided defensive combat air patrols over the Persian Gulf region (less Kuwait and Iraq). Canadian soldiers helped guard prisoners of war, defend airfields and provide security for the 1st Canadian Field Hospital that provided additional health service support. While all of these were important contributions, Canada also provided assistance for Operation DESERT SHIELD. A number of states deployed forces to Saudi Arabia to aid in that Kingdom’s defence should Iraqi forces have attacked. Some Canadian contributions to this operation remain unacknowledged. The massive victory in DESERT STORM was a direct result of the efforts expended in DESERT SHIELD. The two operations comprise the 1991 Gulf Campaign. Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Goose Bay played a little known but remarkable role in Operation DESERT SHIELD in August 1990. It was, in fact, the first unit of the Canadian Forces to support the 1990–1991 Gulf Campaign by acting as a transit station for the US Air Force’s Military Airlift Command (MAC) as well as other US Air Force formations during Operation DESERT SHIELD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.006 |
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".