Bibliographic record
Abstract
No study of Co-operation in Britain would be complete without an examination of the international aspects of Co-operation and their impact upon the British Movement. The C.W.S. and the S.C.W.S. are considerable importers of foodstuffs and, to a much smaller extent, export their own products. They have their own foreign depots and agencies through which much of their business is conducted. Periodically they appoint trading missions to bulk purchase their overseas requirements. In the course of their visits they often meet representatives of the Co-operative Marketing Organizations of other countries. For the most part, however, they purchase in the open market. The Co-operative Wholesale Society played a conspicuous part in encouraging co-operative marketing in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The English and Scottish C.W.S. own tea plantations in India and Ceylon, while the Co-operative Insurance Society undertakes re-insurance for some overseas co-operative insurance undertakings. Whilst most of this business is commercially sound and has been undertaken for this reason, it also satisfies the international aspirations of the Movement. That is not all. In the development of the British Colonies Co-operation has a special part to play in improving the economic and social conditions of the native peoples and leading them towards self-government.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.024 |
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".