Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapter analyses the efforts of the forces of the Resistance, of the Badoglio government and of the governments of national antifascist unity to mobilise the Italian people in the struggle against the German occupier. This was a difficult task in a country exhausted after three years of a war which had ended in the armistice declaration. By analysing the press, as well as other publications and the speeches broadcast on the radio, it is evident that the anti-Fascist forces as well as the Monarchist government made ample use of Risorgimento traditions in order to galvanise an anti-German approach: Mazzini and Garibaldi, in other words the Republican tradition, represented the principal reference points for the anti-Fascist left (the Socialists, Communists, and Actionists), while the Monarchists harked back to the traditions of the nation's institutions, in other words the moderate and liberal legacy of the Risorgimento. The chapter then turns its attention to the political and diplomatic dimension of the struggle for liberation. The need to maximise efforts in the fight against the 'common enemy' was of fundamental importance to the government and the anti-Fascist parties, who shared the belief that victory would lead to the international redemption of the country, overcoming Italy's status as a nation which had been defeated, and obliged to accept an unconditional surrender. This inferior status has not been modified by the recognition of 'co-belligerence' following the declaration of war by the Kingdom of the South against Germany on 13 October 1943. Thus Italian political initiatives from September 1943 onwards were designed to meet the requests of the Anglo-Americans to fulfil the promises of the Quebec Agreement, signed by Winston Churchill and the American president Roosevelt. This document, attached to the armistice conditions, established that such conditions would be strictly dependent on the level of Italian commitment to the war against Germany.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".