Bibliographic record
Abstract
The after-dinner remarks of the Army chief of staff to the American Legion in Washington on February 3 revealed the perspective of the American chiefs of staff as 1944 began. Optimistic that the end of the war in Europe would occur by the fall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) became concerned as the year lengthened that victory in Europe might blunt the commitment of the American people to see the Pacific war through to the unconditional surrender of Japan. This preoccupation, and other political considerations such as growing awareness of the fading luster of China's great power status and the moral and political lure of the Philippines as a strategic objective, cast an intricate political shadow over Pacific strategy in 1944. By the year's end, however, following the wartime conference of FDR and Churchill at Quebec, the recall of General Stilwell from China, and recognition by the JCS of FDR's increasing disillusionment with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the definition of that shadow became more distinct. The JCS found themselves able to devote their full efforts to the accomplishment of what they viewed as the one remaining clear national objective in the Pacific: securing the speedy unconditional surrender of Japan with a strategy that would sustain the commitment of the home front.2 KeywordsPolitical ConsiderationPacific StrategyMilitary StrategyHome FrontJoint ChiefThese 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".