MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232576925

British Maritime Coal and Commercial Control in the First World War: Far More Than Mere Blockade

2015· article· en· W2232576925 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph Zeller

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)World War IIBlockadeEconomic historyControl (management)EconomyPolitical scienceHistoryLawManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of British commercial control in the First World War has been understood primarily as a naval blockade which was actually only part of a complex and interwoven system.While Germany's blockade relied on the destructive potential of its shells and torpedoes, Britain's blockade employed more flexible and formidable powers, those of coal, geography, and commerce.Britain possessed advantages that ensured support abroad would make its way across to European shores while Germany's support could not.Britain's winning strategy, begun before the First World War and continued throughout the war, focused on maintaining commercial control of the world's trading routes and fuel.T he great war was a transformative event in which Canada played a significant role.That contribution was enabled by the elaborate system of commercial and fuel control that provided Great Britain and her allies with dominance over the world's waterways across which Canadian support, in addition to that of so many others, had to travel.1That aid required a robust shipping infrastructure with ample fuel, namely coal.This was true of all British, American, Canadian, 1 This article represents ongoing doctoral studies and incorporates research findings from pending dissertation chapters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207