MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285608148 · doi:10.1017/9781800105515.004

The Baltic, Blockade and Soviet Russia: September 1939–June 1940

2022· other· en· W4285608148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlockadeSoviet unionGeographyBaltic seaEconomic historyPolitical scienceAncient historyHistoryGeologyOceanographyLawMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the outbreak of war, it was vital that the conflict be contained as much as possible. In Europe, one of the most important regions was the Baltic. The key to limiting the war in that area was Soviet Russia. The Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September and subsequent attack on Finland on 30 November made the Baltic an area of concern for British strategic foreign policy, and a knowledge of Soviet intentions an important issue in British policy. But that was not the limit of Soviet influence. Soviet Russia was also important with regard to British plans for blockade. The British desire to strangle the German economic war effort threatened to be vitiated by the steady flow of vital raw materials into the Reich from Soviet Russia. Much of British policy with regard to Moscow was designed to limit the extent of the breach as much as possible. Underlying all of the British desires was the hope that Soviet Russia could be weaned away from Germany, obviating the worst effects of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. THIS ‘RUSSIAN MONSTROSITY’: THE NAZI-SOVIET PACT AND ITS AFTERMATH, AUGUST–OCTOBER 1939 This latter was important. In the aftermath of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and before the war itself began, the ‘world’, Halifax remarked, ‘looks very black’. In this darkened Europe, the Foreign Office attempted to discover just what that agreement portended. Its Far Eastern ramifications will be discussed in a later chapter, but there was immediate speculation as to its impact on Europe. A conversation with a well-informed Czech journalist spurred concerns about the future of Eastern Europe. The belief was that the Nazi-Soviet Pact adumbrated the formation of a ‘Congress Poland’, which would serve as an ‘uneasy buffer’ between the two aggrandising states. In the absence of any definitive knowledge of the secret protocols of the Pact, it was assumed that Latvia and Estonia were to be allocated to Soviet Russia and that Moscow would be given a ‘free hand’ in Finland. In its retrospective analysis of the reasons behind Soviet Russia's signing of the agreement with Germany, the Foreign Office was convinced that Moscow had made a bad bargain. Explaining why the Foreign Office had not anticipated the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Laurence Collier's view reflected long-standing beliefs in the Foreign Office.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Geopolitical and Social DynamicsFrench-language works237,207