The Old Boy Networks Lieutenant-General William A.B. Anderson Interview, Ottawa 21 May 1991
Bibliographic record
Abstract
illiam A n d erso n was a P erm a n en t F o rce artillerym an who held sta ff appointm ents in the overseas army through m uch of the Second World War.T his tra nscrip t of an interview conducted by J.L .G ran atstein in 1991 fea tures A n d e r so n 's thoughtful and "n o n -ju d g m en ta l" insights concerning many sen io r officers, including G enerals H .D .G .C rera r and G .G .Sim onds, both of whom he served during the cam paign in N orth West E urope.R esu m e : W illiam A n d erson, un ancien a rtilleu r de la fo rce p erm an ente, a occupe des em plois d 'o fficiers superieurs dans l 'arm ee d 'outre-m er durant la m ajeure p artie de la D eu x iem e G uerre m ondiale.C ette tra n scrip tion d 'une entrevue m enee par J.L .G ran a tstein en 1991 p resen te les reflexio n s exem ptes de ju g em en t de M. A n d erson concerna nt bon nom bre d 'o fficiers superieurs, dont les generaux H .D .G .C rera r et G .G .Sim onds, qui ont serv i durant la cam pagne dans le n ord -ou est de l 'E urope.I in t e r v ie w e d G e n e r a l A n d erson at his home in Ottawa as part of the research for my book The Generals: The Canadian Arm y's Senior Commanders in the Second, World, War, published in 1993.I knew him slightly because he had been the commandant at the Royal Military College in 1960-1961, my last year there.Anderson's interview was, I thought then and still, superb for its clear assessments and its frank, non-judgmental tone.He was particularly good in assessing Guy Simonds and Harry Crerar, the
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".