Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1900, the Royal Navy instituted formal advanced instruction for selected officers to better prepare them for higher rank and professional demands. The war course represented a concession to pressure for a staff or war college comparable to other navies and armies. During the tenure of its first director, Henry May, curriculum content and delivery focused on subjects appropriate to practitioners interested in contemporary naval affairs. This article reassesses objectively the war course’s efficacy leading to eventual establishment of the Royal Naval War College. En 1900, la Marine Royale a institué une instruction formelle avancée pour certains officiers afin de mieux les préparer aux exigences professionnelles et aux grades supérieurs. Le cours de guerre représentait une concession à la pression pour obtenir un état-major ou un collège de guerre comparable à d’autres marines et armées. Pendant le mandate de son premier directeur, HenryMay, le contenu et la prestation du programme se sont concentrés sur des sujets appropriés aux praticiens intéressés par les affaires navales contemporaines. Cet article réévalue objectivement l’efficacité du cours de guerre menant à la création éventuelle du Collège de Guerre de la Marine Royale.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".