Based in Japan, Fighting in Korea: Commonwealth Forces from Occupation to War, 1950-57
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formed at the end of one war, only for it to be transformed into a fighting force by the start of another war, the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF) stationed in southern Honshu – in close proximity to Korea – was an important component of the Allied Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952. BCOF’s diverse, multifunctional, and multinational force administered Japan’s surrender, demilitarization, and democratization. At the outbreak of war on the Korean peninsula in June 1950, Commonwealth naval and air forces were almost immediately deployed to fight alongside US forces in Korea from their bases in Japan. Ground forces from Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada were then committed to fight alongside South Korean and US forces from September 1950 onwards, in what became the British Commonwealth Force Korea (BCFK). Utilizing interviews with veterans and their families, the following article will reveal the importance of the Commonwealth’s use of BCOF’s military bases, barracks, maintenance workshops, and its extensive network of health, welfare, and recreational facilities, to argue that Japan effectively served as BCFK’s ‘forward base’ and ‘labour pool’ during the Korean War, providing the strategic and infrastructural foundations of the understudied Commonwealth contribution to the ‘emergency’ in Korea.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it