'Interdependent or Independent?': Australian-British Relations at the Melbourne Imperial Press Conference (1925)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speaking in Melbourne at the opening of the 1925 Imperial Press Conference, the second Lord Burnham who led the British press delegation, referred to the trilogy of conferences convened by the Empire Press Union to that point in time: the prestigious London debut of 1909, the post-war conference at Ottawa in 1920 and the 1925 event which occurred in Melbourne during September-October.2 Geographically and culturally, successive conferences had taken the various British and Dominion delegations further from London, necessitating in the case of the former, a protracted overseas travel schedule which did not cease with their arrival. In conjunction with the Melbourne conference, for example, British delegates crossed the Atlantic to join with their Canadian counterparts before travelling by ship to New Zealand across the Pacific. Upon their arrival in Sydney, they visited the eastern states before descending to Victoria and Melbourne, which became the base for subsequent excursions to Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. Such strenuous travel schedules, by steamer, train and car, were applauded for their educational value to visiting journalists and overseas delegates, many of whom were accompanied by their partners.3
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".