MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313595629 · doi:10.4324/9781003230656-3

Military aviation in the British Dominions before the First World War

2023· book-chapter· en· W4313595629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Molkentin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilitary aviationAeronauticsAviationFirst world warWorld War IIHistoryOperations researchPolitical scienceEngineeringAncient historyLawAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the decade preceding the First World War, the military forces of the self-governing dominions of the British Empire, as well as the Anglo-Indian Army, grappled with the implications of the invention and early evolution of powered flight. As in Britain, around the empire military professionals and enthusiastic amateurs experimented with and advocated for the formation of aerial defences and aviation services in their respective military forces. This chapter presents a comparative study of military aviation’s evolution in the British dominion and Anglo-Indian Army before the First World War. It draws on research in archives in Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, to evaluate the extent to which these imperial forces incorporated aviation into their military forces before the war and to identify the factors—technological, strategic, industrial, and cultural—that shaped each force’s response to the emerging aeronautical technology. It is clear from this study that, far from acting in lock-step with London, dominion and empire military forces each assessed and incorporated aviation according to its unique strategic and military contexts.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207