Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why did none of the “war plans” of 1914 succeed? Why did they all prove to be inadequate in some way or another? Why did the much-anticipated Armageddon not occur either in Galicia or in northern France? And why were the troops not home by Christmas after the “short, cleansing thunderstorm” predicted by both popular and military writers? The authors of the foregoing essays have addressed these questions through evaluations of the individual war plans of the great powers in 1914. War plans, in the inimitable words of historian Dennis Showalter, were “the nineteenth-century intelligence equivalent of the medieval knight's Holy Grail.” “The history of the campaign of 1914 is nothing else but the story of the consequences of the strategical errors of the War Plan.” With these critical words, General N. N. Golovin sought to explain the Russian debacle of 1914. There obviously was no doubt in his mind that war plans existed – at least in Russia – on the eve of the July Crisis 1914 and that the opening moves of World War I were executed by the great captains on the basis of the plans at hand. In Germany, Staff Chief General Wilhelm Groener after the war spoke of the “symphony” of the Schlieffen Plan and of the “conductor” (Helmuth von Moltke the Younger) who “bungled” its execution. For the historian of today, the task is not so simple nor the path so straightforward.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.054 |
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".