Ann Goldberg . Honor, Politics, and the Law in Imperial Germany, 1871–1914 . (New Studies in European History.) New York: Cambridge University Press. 2010. Pp. xi, 215. $95.00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this fascinating study Ann Goldberg argues that imperial Germany experienced the development of “a hybrid legal culture that merged key liberal legal principles—the Rechtsstaat, legal equality, civil rights—with a jurisprudence that assumed and protected the social hierarchies and status differences embedded in the concept of honor” (p. 19). She bases her argument on an examination of defamation suits. From the late 1870s, Germans from all walks of life were entitled to sue to protect their honor, and Goldberg shows that many made use of this right. Germans sued to defend themselves against the insults or perceived insults of neighbors, co‐workers, employers, and officials. At the same time, individuals in positions of authority used the same legal weapon to enforce deference. Otto von Bismarck, for example, brought nearly 10,000 such suits. The law that established the right to sue for defamation (Beleidigung) without regard to the status...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".