Aidan Dodson and Dirk Nottelmann, The Kaiser’s Cruisers, 1871–1918 by Charles Ross Patterson II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Northern Mariner / Le marin du nord remarkable the attack was and the massive difficulties that the Japanese had to overcome to not just try, but to succeed so dramatically.When matched with the political/foreign policy decisions that set the context for the war, it presents the reader with a good understanding of the road to war.Unfortunately, there are some problems with the text.Discussion of the preparation for the attack on 7 December is remarkable.Butler provides incredible detail regarding the routine of many of the key players from prayers at the Shinto shrines on board the ships to what they ate for breakfast and the spotting of planes on the carrier decks.But such detail is not common knowledge and should be backed up with some form of attribution.Citation is an important aspect of every historical work, yet its spottiness imposes a limitation on the text.Sadly, it also means that the text needs to be used very carefully.The account that Butler lays out is very clear and easy to follow.It provides a series of dramatic moments and hits all the key elements of the story of Pearl Harbor that have appeared in the existing literature.As such it is a useful text for anyone interested in the subject, especially if they are only starting to come to the subject.Unfortunately, the text does not provide a great deal of new information for readers already familiar with the history of Pearl Harbor.For example, Gordon Prange's more detailed 1981 study At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor is recommended.Clear and concise, Butler's text is a valuable account and as such is highly recommended.The citations and bibliography provide an excellent start for research purposes and would definitely be an asset to any student of Pearl Harbor.I would recommend it for not only the fan of American and military history, but for anyone working in the area.A valuable research tool to be sure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".