Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Admiralty only began to think seriously about war with Italy in 1935 as a result of the Abyssinia crisis. Prior to this, Italian friendship had been taken for granted. The decline in Anglo-Italian relations following Mussolini’s invasion of the independent east African state of Abyssinia might not have been viewed with particular alarm within naval circles had it not been for the impact of Italian hostility on Britain’s strategic position vis-à-vis Germany and Japan, and the danger of an estranged Italy moving into alignment with those powers. A three-front war against Germany, Japan, and Italy would stretch British resources to breaking point, and the existence of a hostile Italy athwart Britain’s main line of imperial communications would seriously complicate the despatch of a fleet to the Far East. Thus, while Chatfield remarked privately in August 1935 that the ‘bumptiousness of Italy is so great that it may be worth fighting her now to re-assert our dominance over an inferior race,’ he conceded that since ‘a hostile Italy is a real menace to our Imperial communications and defence system’ it would be better to avoid war. 1 The Admiralty was confident, however, that Italy’s vulnerability to British seapower would make a purely Anglo-Italian conflict a largely one-sided affair — an assessment shared by the Italian navy. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".