"Is it even worthwhile doing the dishes?" : Canadians and the nuclear threat, 1945-1963
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians faced an unprecedented threat after the Second World War. Located between two competing superpowers Canada could become the battlefield of a third world war. How did Canadians respond to the nuclear threat? The government of John Diefenbaker warned that millions of Canadians could die in a nuclear war. It strengthened Canada's contribution to the defence of North America and Europe and dedicated more resources to civil defence. Between 1957 and 1963 the domestic issue of nuclear arms acquisition and growing cold war tensions combined to draw attention to the threat. Newly founded anti-nuclear groups as well as Canadian unions, newspapers, magazines, student groups, churches and community organizations confronted nuclear issues. These groups shared a concern about survival but reached different conclusions about how Canada could avoid nuclear devastation. Their attempts to come to terms with the threat of nuclear war highlight broader themes in the history of postwar Canada including the influence of the cold war on the attitudes and behaviours of Canadians and the nation's relationship with the United States. While more Canadians discussed the nuclear threat in these years the majority did not join the debate. Polls showed the public supported a nuclear defence. They believed few would survive a nuclear attack but did not worry about nuclear war. Economic concerns always ranked higher. The public was, on the whole, not mobilized either in preparation or in protest. Diefenbaker questioned what else he could do to increase public concern about survival. Both the civil defence program and the nuclear disarmament movement struggled. Polls showed that most Canadians did nothing to prepare for a war fought at home. Anti-nuclear groups remained small, divided over their platforms and methods and faced financial constraints. The debate about survival grew in the period between 1957 and 1963 but was dominated by elected officials, civil defence authorities and anti-nuclear activists. Even these groups found it difficult to balance the Soviet threat with the risk of a nuclear war and struggled to achieve policies that would provide security for the nation and its population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it