Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Empire was always a military power, but it was not always a military coalition. The colonies that became self-governing Dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, formed a distinct community within the Empire by the early twentieth century. 1 Imperial defence was the most emotional of the many ties linking them to the Empire. The literature devoted to the subject has produced four clear themes. First, evolution of the Dominions produced the ‘liberal empire’ which for many British subjects defined their imperial experience. Second, conditions particular to each Dominion influenced its individual role. Third, defence relations were always driven by foreign policy. Fourth, those relations resembled spokes in a wheel running from the mother country to each Dominion, seldom moving laterally from one Dominion to another. Scholars long dwelt on constitutional evolution, arguing it determined the Dominions’ role in imperial defence. 2 The focus is broader now, but one old argument recently resurfaced: did the British gain enough support from the Dominions to justify the burden they bore to protect them? 3 In that distinct community defence represented the lowest common denominator, survival. As long as the mother country and its Dominions remained tied to a global order defined by British power, they made up their own minds about how to defend what they shared. This ‘coalition of the usually willing’ made the Dominions’ partners unique in the history of any Empire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".