Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the autumn of 1933, the ‘period of deterrence’ in British strategic foreign policy began. The bases of British strategic foreign policy since 1925 – arms control and the League – crumbled, but no replacement for these foundations was apparent. On 14 October 1933, Germany left the Disarmament Conference. This, and the suspension of the London Naval Conference in mid-December 1934, meant that a new arms race loomed. The League had approved the Lytton Report on 24 February 1933, and called on the Japanese to remove their forces from Manchuria. The Japanese had refused, had left the League on 27 March, and, instead, had signed the truce of T'ang-Ku with China two months later. This underlined the League's inability to deal with international problems, and Germany's own withdrawal from the Geneva body on 14 October 1933 made it clear that the Powers which favoured a revision of the settlement reached at Versailles were going to pursue it outside the bounds of the Covenant. British policy makers were forced to reconsider how to deal with the revisionist Powers. One step was to determine Britain's military strength and deficiencies. Another was to attempt to limit the number of threats to Britain's position. Changes in Soviet policy began to make Moscow a possible (if not attractive) bulwark against aggressive revisionism. First, the Soviet government abandoned its policy of avoiding international entanglements, signed non-aggression pacts with many of its neighbours and hinted that it would be willing to conclude defensive alliances to deter Germany and Japan.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".