MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W597355911 · doi:10.3138/cjh.40.3.449

Liberal Internationalism, the League of Nations Union, and the Mandates System

2005· article· en· W597355911 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel Gorman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternationalism (politics)LeaguePolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomic historyLawSociologyEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the emergence of liberal internationalism in Great Britain following the First World War. Britain was an active participant in post-war international organizations, in part to maintain its status as an imperial power. This participation had both official and non-official support. The League of Nations Union (LNU), in particular, was a strong advocate of liberal internationalism, especially the mandates system that emerged from the peace settlement. The mandates system promised a more liberal relationship between European and colonial peoples in the form of trusteeship, yet conflicts over sovereignty between the mandatory powers, the League of Nations’ Permanent Mandates Commission in Geneva, and indigenous actors compromised the system’s effectiveness. The article sheds light on the early twentieth-century development of non-governmental interest groups, the increasingly important role of international organizations to domestic British politics, and the ongoing (re)construction of Britain’s national identities; and the emergence of the international community between the wars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207