British and Canadian Corps Command during the 1944–45 North-West Europe Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Second World War, the corps level of Western Allied command was extremely important in the operational-level conduct of any military campaign. For the corps, headquarters planned and executed the detailed operational battle, as we would describe it today. 1 During the 1939–45 war, this dimension of operations was termed differently, with the corps being ‘the largest formation which fights the tactical battle’. 2 This 1940s doctrinal perspective meant that an army-level headquarters was the lowest operational command and the corps the highest tactical-level one. During the 1939–45 war, the job of a corps commander was ‘the tactical handling of troops and [their] administration’. 3 Indeed, a corps command operated within ‘a “territorial corridor”, covering the communications along which it moves and is maintained,’ the geography of which had been ‘defined by the Army Commander’. 4 During the 1944–45 North-West Europe campaign, the corps typically fought three main types of operations: a set-piece offensive against prepared enemy positions; a following-up exploitation offensive against retiring enemy forces; or (rarely) a defensive battle against a significant enemy counter-offensive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".