Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Empire had established the ‘special tariff policy’ basically for the trade between Britain and its colonies. Although Britain stood for free trade policies, protective trade policies had been adopted in its colonies. Each colony of British Empire had tariff autonomy and ‘preferential tariff policies’ had been in effect between most of its colonies. Before the world economy crisis, Britain and its colonial governments had consulted on the issue of preferential tariff at the ‘British Empire Economic Conference’, which showed differences in positions. In September, 1930, after the economy crisis, the ‘British Empire Economic Conference’ was held in London. At that time several proposals for the preferential tariff rule insisted by each colony were not agreed with Britain, either. The ‘British Empire Economic Conference’ had been held for one month since July 21st, 1932 in Ottawa, Canada. At that conference, preferential measurements between colonies were more reinforced. After then, as each nation raised its tariff continuously, ‘tariff war’ followed fiercely. The preferential tariff between Britain and its colonies affected rarely on the trade of Chosun with ‘British Empire Territories’. It could be translated that Chosun had separated from the world economy further than any other colonies due to the complete subordination as a colony of Japan. After annexation, Japan adopted ‘special tariff policies’ in Chosun. However, since the ‘tariff assimilation policy’ was implemented in 1920, Britain’s influence over Chosun trade had been decreased rapidly. Under the world economy crisis, Japan enforced aggressive polices to promote export, which got some results. However, after the Sino-Japanese war, the trade of Chosun overly weighted toward the Yen block and the trade with ‘British Empire Territories’ declined sharply.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".