MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116959830 · doi:10.1111/1468-229x.70075

Churchill and Australia: The Anxious Dominion

2025· article· en· W7116959830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionHistoriographyArgument (complex analysis)Prime ministerIrishGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Odds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article focuses on Winston Churchill's relations with three Australian prime ministers, Robert Menzies, Arthur Fadden and John Curtin, between 1940 and 1942. In doing so, the article reflects on the historiographical debate about Churchill and Australia during the Second World War and what Australia's dominion status meant at the time. In the interwar period, Australia generally resisted the efforts of Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State to move quickly in the direction of greater autonomy. It is the argument of this article that Australia's outlook on its dominion status changed dramatically during the Second World War. Fear of invasion by Japan impelled its leaders to demand that it be treated as an equal with the right to a greater say in allied strategy and the disposition of its military forces. This outlook frequently placed the three Australian leaders at odds with Churchill, whom they resented as treating Australia like a colony. At the same time, Churchill's attitudes to Australia were paradoxical. Despite his firm views on imperial strategy and the proper role of Australia in supporting it, Churchill and his wartime government ultimately deferred to Australia's strongly expressed wishes and treated Australia as an independent country.

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)0.002
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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorySame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207