Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On the assumption that your reviewer of my Navy Record Society volume The Collective Naval Defence of the Empire, 1900Empire, -1940, Greg Kennedy, is not himself above criticism, I would appreciate the opportunity to help your readers with some of he points he raised.I confess that I was staggered by the assertion that my introduction and selection of documents evinces "a sub-text of colonial or dominion persecution at the hands of an exploitive and domineering motherland and Admiralty."I conceived the Navy Record Society volume as a corrective to that very tendency, which, as he notes, is certainly inappropriate and outdated.If he can really detect a prejudice in favour of dominion aspirations, I can at any rate feel confident that I have not overdone the "imperial perspective" of which I was accused when working for the Directorate of History.Kennedy's other assertion -that I see the tactical doctrine of the decisive naval battle as being of "prime interest" in the first decades of this century -I will not dispute.Nor will it be difficult to defend the prominence given it in my introduction, because it was that doctrine which it was most difficult to reconcile with decentralization of operational control, and hence with decentralization of imperial and dominion politics.His criticism that my selection of documents is not "well defined in terms of overall concept and...theoretical context" is more interesting, although in fact, on page two in the introduction/finding aid, I explain the basis of my selection and make clear the limitations of a book of "only" 700 pages.Indeed, it was a minor miracle that the NRS allowed me to produce the longest book in their publication history apart from the centennial volume.It is easy to wish for more documents, but every additional one would have had to be paid for by cutting out another.It is easy to criticise the volume for not including Foreign Office papers, but it is really a destructive idea.If a collection of papers is to be at all useful to scholars working on the subject area it needs to be good at what it does rather than attempting to do everything.It is appropriate that a Navy Record Society volume should fulfil its mandate of publishing naval documents.Any serious scholar of imperial history will know that Admiralty and Committee of Imperial Defence papers provide only a part of the story.Nor will they make the mistake of thinking Foreign Office papers complete the jig-saw puzzle.The suggestion that all the cross-currents of imperial relations could be spelled out in an introduction, even one of fifty-four pages, does not bear serious examination.I was careful to make clear that I conceived of the effort as a "finding aid."Anyone who has read exhaustively through the Admiralty papers for this period will be aware of the themes which interested contemporaries, and they will be aware of the debates within the Admiralty, and between the Admiralty and other government depart-
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».