Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article focuses on three studies of different aspects of Anglo-American relations, and it attempts to place these studies in the larger context of Anglo-American scholarship. Kori Schake examines British-American affairs over a period of almost two centuries with the intention of explaining the unique process by which an established hegemonic power gave way to a rising power without an armed conflict. This thesis is articulated with a concern about the prospect of the threat of a rising China. Andrew Mumford emphasizes the extent to which the Anglo-American special relationship has been strained by counter-insurgency conflicts since World War II. In various of these crises, both Britain and the United States had different interests, constituencies, and counter-insurgency military methods that alienated and created tension between the two allies. B.J.C. McKercher takes a broader historical look at Anglo-American relations in the twentieth century and finds the special relationship much more flexible and workable than either Schake or Mumford does. He concludes that both countries needed allies and that Britain and the United States still have more in common with each other than with the rest of the international community. Anglo-American relations remains a topic of international interest and relevance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".