MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912195715 · doi:10.1080/07075332.2019.1566159

Spearhead Currency: Monetary Sovereignty and the Liberation of France

2019· article· en· W2912195715 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International History Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCurrencySovereigntyRealmGermanOrder (exchange)Political scienceWork (physics)LawEconomic historyEconomyBusinessEconomicsFinanceHistoryEngineeringArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Allied preparations to liberate Europe from German occupation included planning for army purchasing in combat zones and for the restoration of monetary order in liberated regions. The idea of ‘spearhead currency’ was developed in 1942 with US troops using ‘yellow seal dollars’ to pay troops and purchase goods and services in North Africa. But Allied policy worried European governments in exile, and Allied monetary policy adapted to take more careful consideration of currency issue as a critical realm of national sovereignty. France proved to be a particularly difficult case. President Roosevelt did not want to recognize Charles de Gaulle and the CFLN, but Allied planners and military needed to work with competent French civilian authorities if they were to secure liberated regions and advance into Germany without committing larger numbers of military personnel to manage civilian affairs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it