Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The First World War revived the cause of preferential trade. In 1932 at the Imperial Economic Conference in Ottawa, a system of comprehensive preferences was negotiated that in some degree resembled the dreams of tariff reformers. The road to and on from Ottawa was far from straightforward. This chapter traces the twists and turns afresh through the ongoing debates within the FCCBE and its congresses, continuing the methodology of Chapter 2. In contrast to the pre-war period, the clash was less between free trade and tariff reform (though lone free trade voices were never extinguished) and more between different conceptions of imperial preference. The chapter sets this debate against the changing backdrop of the post-war economy, the honeymoon of the mid-1920s, and the dislocations of the great depression, charting discussions of imperial preference. It shows how through the 1920s the cause reached a hiatus before reviving after the Wall Street Crash under the stimulus of nascent proposals for a Franco-German Customs Union, and the UK’s final abandonment of free trade. It shows how the Federation participated at the edges of the negotiations in Ottawa, but their bilateral structure privileged national not pan-imperial business umbrella bodies. It finally reconstructs the celebrations and disappointments attendant on the post-Ottawa system. A crucial theme is the way in which the Ottawa preferences came in many quarters to be framed not as an act of imperial autarky, but as a prelude to a wider freeing of international trading relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.253 | 0.101 |
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".