MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W650345433

The uninvited guests: Britain’s military forces in Iceland, 1940-1942

2012· other· en· W650345433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip W. Deans

Bibliographic record

VenueChesterRep (University of Chester) · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Socioeconomic and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceAncient historyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout 10 May 1940-22 April 1942, British forces conducted a military occupation of Iceland. There were two initial reasons for this venture: firstly, in order to acquire air and naval bases to combat German forces situated along the Norwegian coast; and secondly, in order to prevent the island from coming under German control, thus guarding against encirclement. Whitehall certainly considered it an advantageous undertaking. However, as this dissertation shall show, such beliefs were swiftly escalated. During June 1940, after France’s capitulation, the retention and defence of Iceland became all the more important. It was essential, for example, that Britain could maintain at least one clear access route in and out the North Atlantic. Failure to do so would surely have lead to her starvation and/or military defeat. As a result, and along with other important reasons discussed herein, over 20,000 British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel, supported at various points by American and Canadian troops, were eventually stationed there. Unfortunately, there are very few publications on the British invasion and occupation of Iceland, notwithstanding a few specialist works. Those works that do exist, however, read more like chronological narratives, rather than analytical studies. Consequently, there exists some exciting opportunities for the historiography’s expansion, not just in size, but also in nature of content. This dissertation, entitled ‘The Uninvited Guests: Britain’s Military Forces in Iceland, 1940-1942’, contributes to that much needed expansion. This dissertation looks at the British occupation of Iceland over two periods: the invasion period, 10-19 May 1940, and the occupation period, 20 May 1940-22 April 1942. It assesses the effects and consequences of both the invasion and occupation, and tries to determine how far they preserved Icelandic freedoms and secured Allied interests in Northern Europe. Indeed, this dissertation shows that the invasion and initial occupation of Iceland was a complete military disaster, one that offered no benefit to either the Icelanders or Allies. If iii anything, it put the Icelanders at greater risk of harm from German retaliation. This dissertation also shows that Britain made good its early deficiencies by eventually bringing security and prosperity to Iceland, where before there had been none, and by positively utilising Iceland in the war against Germany. The conclusions of this dissertation are fascinating; they show that it is possible to cultivate rich reward from an operation that could have been destined for complete disaster.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChesterRep (University of Chester)Same topicEuropean Socioeconomic and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207