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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Kenneth Mouré

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International History ReviewSame topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207