William Beezley interview, "Mexicans in Revolution, 1910-1946"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It's shocking and embarrassing how little I, as an American, know about Mexican history. Mexico shares a 2,000 mile long border with the United States. Mexico is America's third largest trading partner (behind Canada--about which I also know nothing--and China). Over 20 million people in the U.S. say they are of "Mexican descent." But all I can tell you about Mexican history is that the Aztecs built some really impressive pyramids, then the Spanish took over, then the Mexicans threw the Spanish out, then "we" beat the Mexicans and grabbed a bunch of their territory, then there was a confusing period involving France, and then Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata did some revolutionary stuff. The only phrase that comes to mind when I think of the period that followed--1910 to the present--is "illegal aliens." My ignorance is just pathetic (not to mention irresponsible). So I was really happy when William H. Beezley told me that he and Colin M. MacLachlan had written a kind of primer on the Mexican history in the first half of the twentieth-century. Mexicans in Revolution, 1910-1946 (University of Nebraska Press, 2009) is a model of concision and clarity. Beezely and MacLachlan do more with less better than almost any historian I know. I've tried my hand at this "boil-it-all-down" genre of historical writing, so I can tell you that it's tough to pull off successfully (not that I did). Beezley and MacLachlan do. I recommend this short introduction to any American who doesn't know enough about the origins of modern Mexico. If all so-benighted Americans bought a copy, Mexicans in Revolution, 1910-1946 would sell something on the order of 250 million copies. Bill and Colin have their fingers crossed, and so do I.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".