Ian Bowers (ed.), Coalition Navies during the Korean War: Understanding Combined Naval Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews 573 reader when reading a history about pirates or piracy that one should ask who should be called pirates and how were they defined as such.The scholarly book contains a large section devoted to "further reading," giving primary source material and printed sources, but the author spends many pages referring to, and usually refuting, Charles Johnson's 1724 book, A General History of Pyrates.In writing an academic thesis in history, it is well-advised to touch on every pertinent event and its historical primary or secondary source reference.Sometimes it is like an exercise of trying to count sheep in a distant pasture while riding on a rapidly moving train.Writing a book for more popular consumption, however, is more effective if its characters and interactions are limited and clearly drawn.Richard Blakemore appears to have revised his Cambridge University PhD thesis into a more readable work.He presents many fascinating episodes and thoughtful character analysis of men and women who were accused of being pirates and those who applied contemporary law against the maritime criminals.Unfortunately, in several instances, there are so many minor characters mentioned and only briefly explored in the book that a reader may have difficulty following the stories.Enemies of All is a dynamic account of "The Golden Age of Piracy," a rich and detailed history of piracy around the world in the twilight of the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth century.Over time, the facts about piracy have been altered by an abundance of myths.Blakemore's scholarly work is thought-provoking and useful to readers interested in how this rogue enterprise was able to change the world, perhaps in what will be to some unexpected ways.I recommend this book to maritime historians who are interested in the evolution of piracy and privateering throughout the world during this time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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".