Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ashton-Gwatkin sends his optimistic report to Halifax without further discussions with Walter. Halifax responds directly to Runciman, rejecting any suggestions that Henlein should be allowed to play this role as he feels that it might lead to complications. Runciman denies that he had expressed any approval of Henlein’s proposals and feels that his own role is solely as a mediator between the Czech Government and the SdP. Meetings with Beneš are irregular and Beneš does not communicate about his new negotiations with Kundt and Sebekowsky. He delivers his Third Plan memorandum which Runciman states is no use for publication and a delaying tactic. Beneš is offended. London urges the Czechoslovak Government to go public with its offer. Ashton-Gwatkin meets again with Henlein before his next visit to Hitler. There is a message to say that the Mission would assist in reaching an agreement on the basis of both the Third Plan and the Carlsbad Program. Henlein is keen to distance himself from the Reich Nazis as he desires peace. Beneš considers Runciman gullible in believing this claim. Hitler dismisses Henlein by saying that England is bluffing for time but Germany is prepared for war. David Stephens joins the Mission.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".