MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980308161 · doi:10.1177/096834450100800104

The Ottoman Crisis of May 1915 at Gallipoli

2001· article· en· W1980308161 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWar in History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Turkish Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishGermanOttoman empireHistoryAncient historyPolitical scienceClassicsLawArchaeologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article first considers the difficulties and potential of researching the Gallipoli/Canakkale campaign in the General Staff archives in Ankara, Turkey. Attention is paid to the Ottoman (Turkish) crises in early May 1915. Normally, historians use English-language sources to focus on Allied problems, but Ottoman, Turkish and one German source in particular allow an investigation of two Ottoman crises. One relates to the extreme disorganization of the two Ottoman attacks in early May, and the other to the disagreement over tactics between Liman von Sanders (commanding Ottoman forces in Gallipoli/Canakkale), and the Ottoman supreme commander, Enver Pasa. Ultimately, the two crisis are resolved. It is argued that historians generally undervalue the difficulties faced by the Ottomans (Turks) in early May 1915.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.255 · 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