Through the Lens of Sea Power and Maritime Strategy: Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett on the Napoleonic Wars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett used the Napoleonic Wars to provide concrete illustrations of their theoretical arguments. This should not be surprising. When the two wrote at the dawn of the twentieth century, the Napoleonic Wars were the most recent great power conflict with a significant naval element. Though both explained the wars through a combination of naval, land, diplomatic, and economic tools of power, Mahan and Corbett weighted these instruments differently. This reflected Mahan’s theory of sea power and Corbett’s ideas about maritime strategy. Understanding how they explained the Napoleonic Wars and interpreted the outcome allows for a stronger understanding of their arguments and agendas while serving as a powerful corrective to land power-centric interpretations of those wars. Alfred T. Mahan et Julian S. Corbett ont tous deux invoqué les guerres napoléoniennes comme illustrations concrètes de leurs arguments théoriques. Cette constatation n’a pas de quoi surprendre. Lorsque les deux auteurs étaient actifs à l’aube du 20e siècle, les guerres napoléoniennes étaient le plus récent conflit entre grandes puissances qui comprenait un élément naval important. Bien que Mahan et Corbett aient expliqué les guerres à l’aide d’une combinaison de visions navales, terrestres, diplomatiques et économiques du pouvoir, ils ont pondéré ces questions de différentes façons qui reflétaient la théorie de la puissance maritime de Mahan et les idées de Corbett sur la stratégie maritime. En apprenant à connaître leurs explications des guerres napoléoniennes et leurs interprétations des résultats, l’on peut mieux comprendre leurs arguments et leurs raisonnements qui servent d’excellent correctif aux interprétations axées sur la puissance terrestre de ces guerres.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".