Strategy and command. The Anglo-French coalition on the Western Front, 1914
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first in a series of three volumes on the First World War, Roy A. Prete's book renews the historiography of the conflict through his analysis of the strategic relations between France and Great Britain. Referring regularly to the sacred union in each of the two countries, he rightly underlines ‘the priceless treasure of national unity for the war effort’ (72). Nevertheless, the attempts to coordinate divergent viewpoints shows up the divisions between the French and the British. Britain was wary of its French allies, who often appeared condescending, and particularly too impetuous. French doctrine at the time privileged the offensive, heir to the furia francese, which did terrible damage at the start of the war. British wariness also found its origins in French political instability (12 governments between 1910 and 1914) and the fear of French moral collapse when faced with reverses of fortune, which might lead to secret negotiations with Germany, as Joseph Caillaux did in 1911 ‘behind the back of his own foreign ministry’ (42).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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".