Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Having considered the view of the British political elite in London and the implications of wartime declarations and Anglo-American differences in the preceding chapters, this chapter opens a section of the book that develops our enquiry into what the war did to the Empire and Britain’s prospects of holding on to it by looking at the conflict’s effects ‘on the ground’. It examines the war’s effects on the relationship between Britain and the dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa. The British knew that imperial unity depended upon the support of the dominions for British policies at the international level, and that Britian’s great power status depended upon it being seen to lead the Empire’s Commonwealth ‘hub’. But they also knew that the war had enhanced the autonomy and regional awareness of the dominions and accelerated the slow devolution of power that had been dissolving London’s control and influence over them for some time. This had a lot to do with Britain’s inability to defend the dominions in the face of the Japanese threat, and the concomitant reliance on the might of the coming American superpower. Nevertheless, a significant range of shared interests meant that the Anglo-dominion imperial core was far from moribund, economic, cultural, and security ties remaining very strong, and the British elite had little difficulty in foreseeing a future in which they continued to lead and the dominions follow.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".