Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the eleven months from the Munich settlement to the outbreak of war in Europe, there were two principal alternatives for British strategic defence policy. The first was Neville Chamberlain's approach. In Europe, this amounted to continued concessions to the dictator states (appeasement by another name), but this strategy was limited, both by the fact that there were fewer and fewer concessions left to give and by the fact that it showed no signs of achieving its goals. In the Far East, it meant accommodation with Japan, but Tokyo's continued aggression meant that accommodation was hard to effect without alienating both public opinion and the United States. The second alternative was to take up arms in conjunction with others and oppose the revisionist Powers. But would Chamberlain accept this? And would the other Powers adhere to such a British policy after years of being snubbed or fobbed off with excuses? France, certainly, had few alternatives, but Soviet Russia had two: it could either retreat into isolation or mend its fences with Germany. Chamberlain's freedom of action was less during this period than it had been before Munich. Although only Duff Cooper had resigned after Munich, the Cabinet was more restive than before, and small ‘groups’ of parliamentarians – Eden's ‘glamour boys’ (now led by Leo Amery) and Churchill's supporters – who disliked Chamberlain's foreign policy had formed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.014 |
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".