THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS IN EVALUATIONS BY CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH-SPEAKING HISTORIANS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the present-day Englishlanguage historiography of the 1962 Caribbean Crisis. The article presents the opinions of the historians from the USA, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. The paper discusses the points of view of the “traditionalists” who criticize the actions of N.S. Khrushchev, and the “revisionists” who negatively assess the US foreign policy during that period – the policy that, in their opinion, mainly contributed to the unleashing of the crisis. The article also highlights a number of other issues related to the Caribbean Crisis: the participation in the events of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the role of UN Secretary General U Thant in resolving the conflict, the need to expand the chronological framework of the crisis. The author comes to the conclusion that the discussion of the Caribbean Crisis in historiography should encourage an increase in the number of publications and inspire the solution of the previously insufficiently studied issues related to the conflict that happened 60 years ago.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".