British Maritime Coal and Commercial Control in the First World War: Far More Than Mere Blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".