The Opening Hand: British Intelligence, Archives, and the End of the Cold War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay reviews Stella Rimington's Open Secret: The Autobiography of the Former Director-General of MI5, and Richard J. Aldrich's The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence. Since unsuccessfully trying in 1987 to block the publication of Spycatcher, Peter Wright's memoirs of his career in British intelligence, the British government has been increasingly tolerant towards revelations about the secret services. The end of the Cold War has fostered this climate of official openness. As a result, in 1997, the British intelligence agency MI5 began transferring historic files to the Public Record Office in London. Rimington's memoirs and Aldrich's history, based in part on newly available documents, are examples of the boundary between what the British government is willing to release to archives, and the information that it feels must still remain secret. RÉSUMÉL'auteur fait la critique des ouvrages Open Secret: The Autobiography of the Former Director-General of MI5, de Stella Rimington et de The Hidden Hand: Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence, de Richard J. Aldrich. Après avoir sans succès essayé d'empêcher la publication de Spycatcher, les mémoires de l'agent secret Peter Wright en 1987, le gouvernement britannique a été de plus en plus tolérant quant aux révélations au sujet de ses services secrets. La fin de la guerre froide a encouragé ce climat d'ouverture officielle et permis, en 1997, le début du transfert des dossiers historiques de l'agence secrète britannique M15 au Public Record Office de Londres. Les mémoires de Rimington et l'histoire de Aldrich, basés en partie sur des documents nouvellement disponibles, sont des exemples de la frontière entre ce que le gouvernement britannique veut bien transmettre aux archives et ce qu'il préfère garder secret.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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".