「グレニーグルズ合意」（1977年）にいたる道（一・補論） -コモンウェルス事務局による草案について-
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to report on new findings related to the Gleneagles Agreement, which was announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in June 1977.The Agreement is believed to have mitigated the confrontation between "new" Commonwealth countries and New Zealand over the problem of sporting contacts with South Africa during the Apartheid era, and played a crucial role in avoiding a mass boycott of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, Canada, the next year.Although academics have already devoted considerable attention to the preliminary arrangement for the agreement, parts of the story have remained ambiguous and untraceable.In this paper I introduce the drafts of declaration and resolution by Jeremy Pope, a promising staff member of the Commonwealth Secretariat, found in the Secretariat documents recently opened to the public in 2008, as these drafts seem to have never been cited in articles and books concerning the CHOGM and anti-Apartheid campaigns.Translating them into Japanese and referring to other documents of the Secretariat and those of the British government, I review the earlier descriptions of the developments which the Secretariat, the British government and others were engaged in just before the CHOGM in 1977.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.011 |
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".