MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061125638 · doi:10.7202/030989ar

“Empires of the Mind”? C.K. Ogden, Winston Churchill and Basic English

2006· article· en· W2061125638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathleen Garay

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Papers · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOgdenCabinet (room)Meaning (existential)HistoryPolyglotCarvingClassicsLiteratureLawArtPhilosophyEpistemologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the relationship of Churchill's War Cabinet, and in particular of the prime minister himself to a simplified version of English devised by C.K. Ogden (1889-1957). “Basic English” was developed by Ogden during the late 1920s, the result of an obsession with language and meaning which dated from his undergraduate days, and which was reinforced by the horrors of the First World War. “Basic” was but one of many attempts to devise a universal language made during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Following some minor successes during the 1930s, the real testing lime for Basic was to come during the Second World War. Churchill seems to have been first attracted by the language's simple utility. He saw it as providing an easily learned medium of communication between the polyglot wartime allies, but he soon began to glimpse its potentially wider benefits for the post imperial era he was reluctantly being forced to enter. Nor was the possibility that Basic might foster a form of intellectual imperialism lost upon the scheme's enemies. While Basic English continues to be promoted and taught, the fall of Churchill's government in the summer of 1945 ensured that his grand design for Basic would never be realized.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical PapersSame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207