The World War II conferences in Washington, D.C. and Quebec City: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation seeks to show the evolution of the diplomatic relationship between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill from 1941-1945 based on the five conferences that were held in the Americas beginning in December of 1941. Three were held in Washington, D.C. in 1941, 1942, and 1943. Two were held in Quebec in 1943 and 1944. The relationship was a true marriage, complete with disagreements, arguments, and consensus. The meetings, however, would cement the relationship of Churchill and Roosevelt well enough for it to withstand destructive elements within and long enough for the Allies to win the war--together. The personalities of the two leaders, the roles they played as leaders of their two nations, their decisions, and the postwar impact of many of those decisions can best be viewed in the context of how they worked together within the conferences to overcome both differences on policies and their own sometimes obdurate personalities. The issues discussed at these meetings included topics of great significance for the joint war effort and for the postwar world including the joint relationship with China, military leadership in the war effort, the joint military campaigns of North Africa, Italy, and, of course, D-Day. Other issues included the sharing of atomic bomb information, relations with the Free French and Charles de Gaulle, and the future of postwar Germany. The five conferences are the setting for change in the dominance in the partnership. The alliance between the two nations began as one of equals and yet it evolved during the war as the United States became the predominant partner.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.009 |
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".