Dominik Geppert and Udo Wengst, eds., <i>Neutralität—Chance oder Chimäre? Konzepte des Dritten Weges für Deutschland und die Welt 1945–1990</i> [Neutrality—A Chance or a Chimera: The Concept of the Third Way for Germany and the World, 1945–1990].
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
July 01 2008 Dominik Geppert and Udo Wengst, eds., Neutralität—Chance oder Chimäre? Konzepte des Dritten Weges für Deutschland und die Welt 1945–1990 [Neutrality—A Chance or a Chimera: The Concept of the Third Way for Germany and the World, 1945–1990]. Gary Bruce Gary Bruce Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Gary Bruce Online Issn: 1531-3298 Print Issn: 1520-3972 © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2008 Journal of Cold War Studies (2008) 10 (3): 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws.2008.10.3.183 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Gary Bruce; Dominik Geppert and Udo Wengst, eds., Neutralität—Chance oder Chimäre? Konzepte des Dritten Weges für Deutschland und die Welt 1945–1990 [Neutrality—A Chance or a Chimera: The Concept of the Third Way for Germany and the World, 1945–1990].. Journal of Cold War Studies 2008; 10 (3): 183–185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws.2008.10.3.183 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsJournal of Cold War Studies Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2008 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it