MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002945498 · doi:10.7202/031014ar

The Limits of Nationalist Politics: Electoral Culture and Mobilization in Germany, 1890-1903

2006· article· en· W2002945498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brett Fairbairn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean history and politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismPoliticsPolitical sciencePolitical economyGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationCivil libertiesLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With Germany's unification, nationalism became an entrenched part of the political culture, until its role was challenged by the rise of social “fairness” issues in the 1890s. In the first decades of the Reich, campaigns against minorities like Catholics, Poles, and Social Democrats helped cement the progovernmental forces, especially in intense “national” elections. The Kartell elections of 1887, in particular, created a patriotic coalition that remained a significant factor in electoral politics for over twenty years. But in the 1890s, nationalist coalition-building became increasingly difficult as the Kartell parties lost support, drifted apart, and competed more and more with one another. The government made efforts to shore up its allies, but these efforts failed to halt the disintegration. Significantly, while some argued the government should use the naval issue or the tariff issue ( Sammlungspolitik ) to influence the elections of 1898 and 1903, the government was unable to do so. Instead, increasing electoral support went to the parties that were perceived as '“mass” parties, especially the Catholic Centre and Social Democrats. These parties organized social-interest constituencies by appealing to “fairness” issues like suffrage, civil liberties, and fair taxation.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicEuropean history and politicsFrench-language works237,207