MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W105147686

Проблема интеграции Канады в систему обороны британской империи на колониальных конференциях (1887–1911 гг. )

2013· article· ru· W105147686 on OpenAlex
Е.С. Симоненко

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueГуманитарные исследования в Восточной Сибири и на Дальнем Востоке · 2013
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominionColonialismEmpireEconomic historyGovernment (linguistics)World War IIHistoryMetropolitan areaPolitical scienceFirst world warWhite (mutation)Ancient historyLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the late XIX – early XX centuries British government developed a large-scale policy of imperial defense, a major component of which was the involvement of the white settlers' colonies in a war on the side of the metropolitan country. One of the main goals of this policy was to obtain the military support of Canada in case of war because Canada was the largest and most prosperous dominion of the British empire. This policy was discussed at a planned series of colonial conference held in London in 1887-1911.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.077

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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