Jean Leclerc, Le Saint-Laurent et ses pilotes 1805-1860 by Harry T. Holman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lardas breaks down the weapons used by the Japanese to defend against TF38, firing a barrage of information regarding guns, their calibre, the ammunition used, and how they compared to American weapons (28-30).On the same page, he refers to Japanese guns, cannons, and shore-based artillery pieces in millimetres.Halfway down the page, he switches to Japanese anti-aircraft artillery measured in centimetres, and then again in inches, all in one paragraph.The confusion and irritation caused by this issue was enough to make me put the text down and walk away from it several times in frustration.I had two other concerns with this text.The first is the overwhelming amount of information regarding aircraft and their weapons as well as shorebased installations, such as antiaircraft guns.Lardas goes into unnecessary detail when describing the technical aspects.Why it was important to know that the "5in./.38cal gun … had a shell weighing 55lbs of which 7.1-8.5lbswas the bursting charge.It could fire 15 rounds per minute and had a 37,200 ft ceiling and had a distance of roughly 8.5 miles" (19).Information such as this is strewn throughout so much of the text that it becomes less about TF 38 and instead, has become a quick but unnecessary reference of the military capabilities for both the American and Japanese forces.In such a short book, the amount of information is overwhelming, especially without any historical analysis.Task Force 38's contribution to ending the war in the Pacific is a history that has extraordinarily little written about it and Lardas should be applauded for writing such a text where sources are extremely limited.Unfortunately, his fixation on technical minutia has severely restricted his examination of the true impact of TF38's efforts to retake the South China Sea.Among the drawbacks to this text are the absence of a bibliography, the omission of citations, inconsistent nomenclature, and too much extraneous information that has no bearing on the study of TF38 and its importance to the war effort.Moreover, it lacks the kind of in-depth historical analysis that would be considered valuable to an academic study of TF38.I feel that Lardas' South China Sea 1945 has missed the mark on what could have been a great resource for academics and general readers alike.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.017 |
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".