When Memory and Reality Clash: The First World War and the Myth of American Neutrality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce document traite du mythe de la neutralit amricaine au cours de la Premire Guerre mondiale. La plupart des tudes sur la politique de l'administration de Wilson cherche dterminer comment et pourquoi le pays s'est trouv en tat de guerre en avril 1917, aprs deux ans et demi de non-belligrance. Le facteur commun ces discussions est l'acceptation tacite par les historiens de la neutralit amricaine d'aot 1914 jusqu'en avril 1917. Le prsent document remet en question l'hypothse selon laquelle la non-belligrance des tats-Unis tait en fait une neutralit, car en effet l'intervention amricaine en faveur des pays de l'Entente a effectivement dbut lors des premiers mois de la guerre. Cet argument met deux aspects en vidence. Tout d'abord, la Grande-Bretagne a systmatiquement viol le droit international. Ensuite, l'administration Washington, entirement favorable l'Entente, a acquiesc la politique britannique dans le but d'entretenir ses relations avec Londres et d'viter une dfaite de l'Entente.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".