Bibliographic record
Abstract
British appraisals of blockade during the First World War shifted from projection and naval-centrism, to greater focus on continental sources of supply. This was a result of a pre-war fixation on Britain’s own vulnerability to blockade and shifting intelligence analysis during the war as observers reacted to the blockade in progress. This did not happen only because Germany’s sources of oversea supply had dried up, but because of an increased appreciation for the potential significance of overland supply. Drawing upon a diverse array of government archival sources and personal papers, this article focuses on a series of key episodes and assessments, and will demonstrate the evolution of British blockade appraisals and how British pre-war fears ignored German realities. By 1915, however, British assessment placed more and more emphasis on continental supply – sources which had been barely mentioned in pre-war discussions, but now seemed critical. I re-evaluate some of the existing paradigms surrounding blockade by recasting British grand strategy in terms of naval-centrism transitioning to the continental realities of the First World War. In doing so, I also link disparate elements of British policy, strategy, and operations by showing how they all related to blockade and its assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".