MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2224536125

Showdown in The Strand: Britain and America, wire and wireless

2011· other· en· W2224536125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jock Given

Bibliographic record

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelecommunicationsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Commonwealth Communications Council met for the first time at Halifax House in The Strand in April-May 1944. Replacing an Imperial Communications Advisory Committee operating since 1928, the CCC’s primary task was to review the international communications networks of Britain and its colonies and dominions, including Australia. In the weeks leading up to D-Day, the CCC held nineteen sessions, taking evidence from some of the main figures in imperial communications. They included the heads of the London-based Cable and Wireless, Edward Wilshaw, and the Australian-based Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) [AWA], Ernest Fisk. Each laid out their own vision for the future of British international communications. Fisk, a Marconi man, presented a plan for a global wireless network, managed by a federation of independent nation states. Wilshaw, having spent his whole working life at the global cable giant Eastern Telegraph and its successor Cable and Wireless, argued for a single Empire Corporation, headquartered in London, with cable at its heart. Neither got their way and neither lasted long in the restructured organisations that resulted. About the only thing they agreed on was the need for the Commonwealth to reassert Britain’s place in the post-war world. On that, they were both disappointed. This paper assesses a decisive technological, political and economic moment and the personalities that shaped it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.008

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology)Same topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207