MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197012788 · doi:10.1386/nzps.3.1.5_1

The British World during the First World War: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the question of Japan

2015· article· en· W3197012788 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jatinder Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of New Zealand & Pacific Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceWorld War IIPoliticsGermanEconomic historySpanish Civil WarHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An examination of the attitude of the Pacific Dominions to Japan during the First World War indicates that each of the Dominions followed a path from heeding the Imperial government’s advice not to be too critical of its Far Eastern ally in the early stages of the war to giving voice to increasing concern about Japanese penetration into the Pacific as the war progressed. I focus on Japanese military mobilization at the outbreak of war, its takeover of the German Pacific colonies north of the equator, and its insistence on keeping them at the end of the war. These three episodes indicate that Dominion attitudes to Japan sometimes actually influenced the making of British foreign policy. There were points where the British government clearly tried to take on concerns from Australia, Canada and New Zealand in its position towards Japan. A good example of this is the British government’s attempts to secure the Japanese government’s support in issuing a joint statement that the latter was not planning on seizing former German colonies in the Pacific that the Dominions intended to deal with themselves in the early stages of the war. But there were also other periods where the realities of great power politics meant that the three Dominions had to accept the position adopted by the Imperial government.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of New Zealand & Pacific StudiesSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207