MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934103304

Third Prize:The Cost of Admiralty: The development and condition of Britain’s modern naval shipbuilding programme, 1832-2015

2015· article· en· W1934103304 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. P. Findlay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Ports and Logistics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShipbuildingNavyVanguardQueen (butterfly)ShipyardGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceManagementEconomic historyEngineeringLawHistoryEconomicsAncient history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the evolution of British naval shipbuilding policy from the establishment of several reforms in the nineteenth century to the current construction of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers today. The nineteenth century proved to be the period that established the Royal Navy as a modern, professional fighting force through reforms to its administration and professionalization of both the officer corps and naval architects. The nationalization of Britain’s shipbuilding capability ensured that this vital asset remained ready for the nation’s beck and call. The current system of privatization and myopic defence and expenditure planning has sidelined the Admiralty’s role as the vanguard of Britain’s defence to a mere tool in the government’s toolbox of foreign policy instruments. These current trends have all been revealed through the current construction of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicMaritime Ports and LogisticsFrench-language works237,207