MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161953072 · doi:10.82308/41189

"Is it even worthwhile doing the dishes?" : Canadians and the nuclear threat, 1945-1963

2004· dissertation· en· W7161953072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Lynn Hunter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisarmamentNuclear weaponGovernment (linguistics)Spanish Civil WarWorld War IINuclear ethicsCold warNuclear warfare

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0430.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207