Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Malayan campaign was the most humiliating and significant defeat in British military history. Between December 1941 and February 1942 the outnumbered IJA killed or captured 139000 Commonwealth troops. Just 3500 soldiers of Nippon were slain. This debacle had many roots. For Britain, menace in Europe produced weakness in Asia, miscalculations of Japanese intentions and of British airpower led to underestimating the danger, pursuing policies which led Japan to attack with Britain unable to defend. Britain had greater military resources than Japan but, fighting a major war in Europe, could not be strong in Asia. Sending enough forces to Singapore to support a cautious policy of deterrence against Japan was possible but, instead, Britain remained weaker and more provocative in Asia than necessary. It thought that cautious Japanese statesmen, unlikely to risk attacks on both Britain and the USA, could easily be deterred from war. These attitudes involved mistaken views about British and Japanese airpower. British leaders believed Japan’s air forces were mediocre, and could throw little power against Malaya because they lacked forward bases and required most of their strength to match Soviet air forces; thus, even outnumbered two or three to one, it was felt that a few second-class British aircraft could defeat Japanese air forces and any amphibious assault on Malaya. Whitehall did not even send out the air force it thought necessary, assuming enough warning of danger to provide reinforcements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".