Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mobilization of resources constitutes a crucial dimension of World War II. It is well established, for instance, that Nazi Germany's prodigious war effort suffered from two major shortages in oil and rubber. Like Germany and Japan, the Allies undertook a frenetic quest for raw materials. It soon encompassed Free France's colonial holdings. British and American experts prospected widely in FEA and Cameroon in search of rubber and rutile, a mineral containing titanium dioxide, used in the armament sector. The U.S. consul in Brazzaville relayed every new lead he could to Washington: rumors of oil deposits off Gabon's shores, the discovery of molybdenite in Cameroon, and so on. In the last case, he even enclosed samples. Rarely had diplomatic bags weighed so much. FEA and Cameroon's rallying Free France in August 1940 ushered in profound economic transformations. The territories “had to turn unexpectedly towards an allied market that was also global,” noted a 1944 report. It added, “Up until then they had lived in the metropole's orbit and their economies had moved in sync with the motherland's. Their economies were radically different from those of English-speaking lands and the abrupt shift from one to the other presented grave dangers.” Two Franco-British agreements sealed this new state of affairs. One dated May 20, 1941, concerned FEA. The other, ratified on January 21, 1941, involved Cameroon. The original agreement for FEA guaranteed that the British would purchase Free French cotton (20,000 tons), rubber (1,000 tons), as well as wax, copal, nut and palm oil, peanuts, and lumber. For its part, Great Britain agreed to supply FEA in finished goods. The agreement for Cameroon featured special clauses concerning timber, bananas, and coffee. Beyond these agreements, the British did not hesitate to formulate additional requests to Free French authorities, to obtain lead, wax, tin, palm oil, antelope skins, and logs chosen to meet the specific dimensions set by the British admiralty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.214 |
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".