Naval Mutinies of the Twentieth Century: An International Perspective (review)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this collection is to retrieve naval mutinies from popular writers and subject them to scholarly analysis. The editors claim to have avoided mutinies which are already well treated in English, and concentrated on mutinies in the first half of the twentieth century which affected squadrons or groups of ships. Single-ship disturbances, they argue, "tend to stem from simple and obvious causes and offer fewer lessons." The incidents treated here are Russian (the famous Potemkin mutiny of 1905), Brazilian (1910), Austro-Hungarian (the Cattaro affair of 1918), German (the High Seas Fleet in 1918), French (the Black Sea in 1919), Australian (the Australia mutiny of 1919), Chilean (1931), British (Invergordon in 1931), American (Port Chicago in 1944), British and Indian (the Royal Indian Navy in 1946), Chinese (the defection of the Chongqing in 1949) and finally the Canadian incidents of 1949. In a final chapter the editors offer a typology of naval mutiny, distinguishing "naval" mutinies concerned with service grievances, from "political" mutinies aiming to change national policies, and "secession mutinies" aiming either to promote outright revolution, or to escape to a foreign country.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it