NORTH AMERICAN COLONYS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE PROBLEM OF ENSURING THEIR SECURITY IN THE 1960S 19TH CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examines the process of transformation of the principles of Imperial defense in the North American colonies of the British Empire. It limits the chronological scope of the work to the 60s. XIX century, when the colonial possessions of Britain in North America received the status of a dominion, which assumed self-government, including in the field of defense. It traces the genesis of the idea of mutual obligations in the field of defense between the mother country and the North American colonies in the first half of the 19th century. It studies the strategic plans for the defense of Canadian territory, developed by British government and military experts at various levels. It formulates the views of W. Gladstone, which determined the policy of Imperial defense throughout the whole decade. It pays particular attention to the transformation of the maritime aspect of Imperial defense and its consequences for the North American colonies. It characterizes 60s 19th century by a weakening of the Anglocentric model of building relations with the North American colonies, where all the full obligations to ensure their security were assigned to the mother country. Henceforth, the colonies were to be responsible for the land defense of their territories. Thus, by the end of the 60s. 19th century finally took shape the trend of transition to the principle of mutual control and collective responsibility in the field of Imperial defense.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".