MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909181017 · doi:10.7202/000396ar

Historische Komparatistik und Kulturtransferforschung. Vom bilateralen Beispiel zu Beiträgen für eine globale Geschichte1

2009· article· de· W1909181017 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueEurostudia · 2009
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Der vorliegende Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit der aus den 90er Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts datierenden Kontroverse zwischen Vertretern einer historischen Komparatistik einerseits und Anhängern der „transferts culturels“ andererseits. Sein hauptsächliches Anliegen ist eine bessere Herausarbeitung des historischen Kontextes dieser Kontroverse als auch ihrer Auswirkungen. Zu diesem Zweck wird in einem ersten Schritt an verschiedene, seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts vorgelegte Anläufe zur Herausarbeitung der Idee einer Weltgeschichte erinnert. Daran anschließend wird hervorgehoben, dass die Intensität der genannten Kontroverse, insbesondere hinsichtlich ihrer deutschen Ausprägung, nur verständlich wird vor dem Hintergrund zweier entscheidender Aspekte: der besonderen historischen Situation am Beginn der 90er Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts und der Diskussion um einen deutschen „Sonderweg“.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.328 · 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