Nicola Guy. The Birth of Albania: Ethnic Nationalism, the Great Powers of World War I and the Emergence of Albanian Independence; Robert C. Austin. Founding a Balkan State: Albania's Experiment with Democracy, 1920–1925
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These two volumes make welcome contributions to Albanian historiography of the early twentieth century. Nicola Guy rigorously studies the diplomatic history from 1912 to 1921, with a few pages extending the coverage to 1926, while Robert C. Austin focuses his analysis on the six-month rule of the reform-minded Fan Noli. Both books develop the theme of Albania as a small Balkan country struggling to gain international recognition and develop as an independent nation-state. In particular, it was the weakest of the Balkan states, small in size and with a deeply fragmented society divided along regional, religious, tribal, family, and geographic lines. For both Guy and Austin, the great powers exploited these weaknesses to further their own interests, often to the detriment of Albania's political and economic development. In her analysis of the rise of Albania, Guy concentrates on the larger diplomatic environment, incorporating theories of international relations (IR) and nationalism. She approaches the study of “small nationalities” (her term) by focusing on the hitherto largely neglected international factors. In fact, she admits, national or internal factors are of only limited use for her study. Lacking a great power patron, the Albanians were at the mercy of international machinations. For Guy, the Albanian national movement remained stalled in Miroslav Hroch's Phase A, or the attempt to develop a national culture, language, and ethnography. Despite Albania's weaknesses, Guy adheres to the IR theory that small-state actors can “make considerable gains in national aspirations without support from the great powers” at points of crisis in the international system (p. 10). In the Albanian case, however, she admits that the gains were usually of limited duration.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".