The Collective Naval Defence of the Empire, 1900-1940
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the assumption that your reviewer of my Navy Record Society volume The Collective Naval Defence of the Empire, 1900Empire, -1940, Greg Kennedy, is not himself above criticism, I would appreciate the opportunity to help your readers with some of he points he raised.I confess that I was staggered by the assertion that my introduction and selection of documents evinces "a sub-text of colonial or dominion persecution at the hands of an exploitive and domineering motherland and Admiralty."I conceived the Navy Record Society volume as a corrective to that very tendency, which, as he notes, is certainly inappropriate and outdated.If he can really detect a prejudice in favour of dominion aspirations, I can at any rate feel confident that I have not overdone the "imperial perspective" of which I was accused when working for the Directorate of History.Kennedy's other assertion -that I see the tactical doctrine of the decisive naval battle as being of "prime interest" in the first decades of this century -I will not dispute.Nor will it be difficult to defend the prominence given it in my introduction, because it was that doctrine which it was most difficult to reconcile with decentralization of operational control, and hence with decentralization of imperial and dominion politics.His criticism that my selection of documents is not "well defined in terms of overall concept and...theoretical context" is more interesting, although in fact, on page two in the introduction/finding aid, I explain the basis of my selection and make clear the limitations of a book of "only" 700 pages.Indeed, it was a minor miracle that the NRS allowed me to produce the longest book in their publication history apart from the centennial volume.It is easy to wish for more documents, but every additional one would have had to be paid for by cutting out another.It is easy to criticise the volume for not including Foreign Office papers, but it is really a destructive idea.If a collection of papers is to be at all useful to scholars working on the subject area it needs to be good at what it does rather than attempting to do everything.It is appropriate that a Navy Record Society volume should fulfil its mandate of publishing naval documents.Any serious scholar of imperial history will know that Admiralty and Committee of Imperial Defence papers provide only a part of the story.Nor will they make the mistake of thinking Foreign Office papers complete the jig-saw puzzle.The suggestion that all the cross-currents of imperial relations could be spelled out in an introduction, even one of fifty-four pages, does not bear serious examination.I was careful to make clear that I conceived of the effort as a "finding aid."Anyone who has read exhaustively through
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it