MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388781970 · doi:10.18778/0208-6050.70.12

Geneza deklaracji londyńskiej z 3 lutego 1935 r.

2001· article· pl· W4388781970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krystian Maciej Szudarek

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Historica · 2001
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolish Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisarmamentDiplomacyGermanLawDeclarationConventionTreatyPolitical scienceNegotiationCabinet (room)NeutralityPoliticsHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to present the circumstances, which led to announcement of London Declaration and British diplomacy’s part in this regard. London communiqué exemplified another attempt of solution issue of German “equality of rights” demands in armaments and French “security” postulate. This iunctim has been included in Powers Declaration from December the 11th 1932. British diplomacy directly contributed to recognition of this principle, because the British had recognised German thesis morally and politically correct. There existed, as well, the fear of Germany’s withdrawal from Disarmament Conference and open rearmament. “Equality of rights” in diplomatic vocabulary meant rearmament. The British diplomacy tried to limit extent of German armaments through disarmament convention (MacDonald’s Plan of 15th March 1933), and after withdrawal of Germany from Geneva and breakdown of the Disarmament Conference, through arms convention (Disarmament Memo of 29th January 1934). For this reasons the British feigned ignorance with regard to German violation of the military provisions of the Peace Treaty. On 17th of April 1934, French diplomacy refused further negotiations on legalisation of German armaments, due to lack of security guarantee. However, the British diplomacy, in sequel, intended to bargain with Hitler and to reach agreement on armaments, although Defence Requirements Committee recognised Germany “as ultimate potential eneny”. But attempt to find solution in connection with negotiation on Eastern Locarno, during the summer 1934, ended with failure. At least, in November-December 1934, the British cabinet took the decision about final solution of the problem of the illegal German armaments, which was regarded as an accomplished fact. According to reports from British Embassy in Berlin, there were the threat that Hitler as first, at the beginning 1935, would propose to resume negotiation on armaments or else would present ex-Allies with a fait accompli. The British intended to take over the initiative and establish common standpoint with the French and propose to change Part V of the Treaty return for some preconditions earlier. On 22nd of December Pierre Laval, new French Foreign Secretary, accepted provisionally this proposition. The fundamental part of the formula declaration has been established through diplomatic means at the end of January 1935. Final arrangements on condition of the cancellation of the disarmament clauses ensued during visits of French ministers in London at the beginning of February 1935. Anglo-French declaration of 3th of February was the attempt to reach of a general settlement, with Hitler, and proposed negotiation: of the armaments question, Germany’s participation in Eastern, Danubian and Air Pact and Her return to the League of Nations, simultaneously. Hitler provisionally agreed to talks, but only with England and merely on Air Pact he voiced favour. Soon chancellor presented the ex-Allies with a fait accompli and British aims: limitation of armaments and Germany’s return to Geneva was not realised although individual parts of London declaration were discussed until autumn 1935.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.043

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Universitatis Lodziensis Folia HistoricaSame topicPolish Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207