Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews 421 is from that year.Any documents more recent than that will inevitably deal with submarines currently in commission and are therefore strictly off-limits.Overall, Jones has done excellent work, having created a strikingly important book in its field.As a reviewer, though, I would be remiss if I did not point out just some of the numerous minor problems that plague the finished product.Indeed, it almost feels as if my electronic copy were in fact an earlier draft awaiting a final stage of editing.How else to explain the fact that the text refers to Figure 2.1 as HMS Meteorite, while the caption to that figure has HMS/m Excalibur?(It happens a second time at Figure 8.1, where Resolution becomes Repulse.)Following no apparent pattern, "HMS," "HMS/M," and "HMS/m" all make their appearance as prefixes for RN submarines, sometimes for the same boat.(Valiant, in fact, is graced with all three.)The author is also prone to run-on sentences, but the reader gets used to this.For reasons that are not clear, science publishers-of whom Palgrave Macmillan's parent, Springer Nature, is one-are willing to charge prices that, for a comparable product, a typical humanities publisher would not dare.While one should never underestimate the willingness to spend money on the part of the dedicated enthusiast, at a price of US $149.99 for the hardcover version, the private individual really has to want it.Institutional libraries are probably a more realistic customer base, particularly those with holdings in the history of British nuclear power, for which this volume is a must.Equally suitable would be any collection with a strong Royal Navy component, the only limitation, possibly, being their desire for a book on a purely propulsion topic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.022 |
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".