Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before the disastrous 1942 Dieppe raid, allied authorities, headed by Lord Mountbatten's Combined Operations Headquarters, devised a publicity strategy to minimize negative press if the raid failed. This deceptive policy initially led the English-Canadian press to portray Dieppe as successful. However, as more information emerged, there arose a growing criticism of the raid in some Canadian newspapers. Yet the political leanings of some newspapers heavily influenced their editorial stance on the raid. The deceptive publicity efforts failed to convince many Canadians, although the reputation of Mountbatten and his organization was preserved. Avant le raid d�sastreux sur Dieppe en 1942, les responsables des forces alli�es dirig�es par Lord Mountbatten, chef des op�rations interarm�es, avaient pr�par� une strat�gie publicitaire visant � minimiser les commentaires n�gatifs qui seraient publi�s dans les journaux en cas d'�chec. � cause de cette conduite trompeuse, la presse canadienne anglaise a d'abord annonc� que Dieppe avait �t� un succ�s. Toutefois, � mesure que des renseignements additionnels ont fait surface, on a commenc� � d�noncer cette op�ration militaire dans certains journaux canadiens. Malgr� tout, les tendances politiques de certains journaux ont continu� d'influer grandement sur le contenu de leurs articles concernant le raid. En d�pit de tous les efforts de publicit� mensong�re, peu de Canadiens ou de Canadiennes se sont laiss�s convaincre, m�me si la r�putation de Lord Mountbatten et de son organisation a �t� pr�serv�e.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".