The Maritime Compromise: British and American Naval Co-operation, 1917-1919
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians have portrayed the Anglo-American naval partnership during the Great War as a fleeting oddity. It began under the pressure of the German submarine campaign, endured through to victory, and rapidly collapsed. Even in 1917-1918, that relationship was dominated by rivalry. The natural product was the so-called ‘naval battle of Paris’ in 1919. In fact, this thesis demonstrates that between 1917-1919, the maritime relationship between these states always was characterised by co-operation and compromise, tempered by rivalry. This partnership was driven by the mutual aim of defeating Germany, and spurred by the exigencies of war. When that goal was accomplished, both Britain and the United States recognised in the other a useful partner in constructing a liberal post-war order. Consequently they worked together, postponing discussions over their naval differences so not to obstruct the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of a League of Nations. The failure of the peace caused naval rivalry, not the other way around.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".