MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976693817 · doi:10.1093/gerhis/ghp027

Selling Berlin: Imagebildung und Stadtmarketing von der preussischen Residenz bis zur Bundeshauptstadt

2009· article· de· W1976693817 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela E. Swett

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman History · 2009
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionNegotiationTheme (computing)PoliticsPolitical scienceSociologyLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This collection of essays on the history of Berlin's Stadtmarketing developed out of a 2005 interdisciplinary workshop organized by the editors to test whether the competitive drive to create marketable images for cities has deep historical roots or whether it is a recent response to globalization. The twenty-one authors included identify a long tradition of marketing Berlin, which consistently necessitated negotiation between competing and often acrimonious interests within the city. Anyone looking for reference to the economic side of the ‘sale’ will be disappointed. The editors are explicit in their intention to wrestle the theme of marketing away from the economic and business historians. Instead, the focus is on three categories of actors who have contributed to Berlin's image-making: first, officials, from Prussian kings to local politicians and occupying forces; second, citizen or corporate interests united with political authorities to present a positive image of the city; and third, the critical or oppositional voices who try to interject their own alternative visions (p. 15).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman HistorySame topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207