MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992389987 · doi:10.5195/ahea.2011.27

Genetic Research and Hungarian "Deep Ancestry"

2011· article· en· W1992389987 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

VenueHungarian Cultural Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnogenesisCONQUESTHistorySubject (documents)GenealogyClassicsAncient historySociologyAnthropologyEthnic groupLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past few decades saw the birth of the new science of genetics that can be used not only for medical purposes but also for the study of the past. Geneticists were quick to begin applying this science to the examination of Hungarian history, especially the subject of Hungarian origins. The purpose of this paper is to acquaint the reader with some of these studies. One study this paper will examine is itself a review of the scientific literature of early genetic studies on Hungarian origins. Other studies evaluated in this paper will be the English-language scientific publications of a team of Hungarian geneticists who over the last several years have studied the genetic inter-relatedness of 10th century and present-day Hungarian populations in the Middle Danube Valley of Central Europe. The paper comes to the conclusion that while very early genetic inquiries into Hungarian origins were often fault-ridden and are of little use now, more recent studies suggest that the currently held explanations of Hungarian ethnogenesis — especially the story of the so-called Hungarian conquest of the late 9th century — might very well be subjected to a fundamental re-assessment.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.091 · 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