Allen Leeper, the Foreign Office and the Diplomacy of Air Disarmament, 1932-1934
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the resident Foreign Office expert on air disarmament during the World Disarmament Conference, Allen Leeper was at the forefront of a campaign for the elimination of military aircraft as a radical bid to address German claims to equality and French demands for security. His motivations derived from a deep-seated fear that legitimising a German air force posed an unacceptable risk to European stability by provoking an all-out arms race, heightening continental tensions and raising the spectre of war. But Leeper’s sweeping solution for military aircraft, with its intertwined repercussions for civil aviation, fell victim to an increasingly truculent government in Berlin that refused to delay equality, claimed substantial increases in German military strength and boosted defence spending while surreptitiously rearming behind the scenes. In these altered circumstances, Leeper abandoned disarmament as a diplomatic tool for treating the Franco-German question and, instead, resorted to other traditional methods for ensuring continental stability. In doing so, he displayed the strengths of the ‘world leadership’ school of foreign-policy making that placed a premium on Britain’s active engagement in great power politics to uphold its position as the pre-eminent global power.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".