Bibliographic record
Abstract
the opinion of John L. Heineman, Joachim von cRibbentrop's interest for historians lies not in his impractical theories but rather in his successful struggle for power.'1 The remark points to both Ribbentrop's remarkable ascent in the Nazi hierarchy from newly minted party member in 1932 to foreign minister in 1938 and his incompetence and lack of substance. As a diplomat with no formal training in diplomacy or knowledge of international relations, Ribbentrop proved ineffectual: he repelled statesmen in the 1930s with his seemingly endless anti-Bolshevist monologues and his repeated calls for the return of the German colonies lost after the First World War. His greatest achievement, the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union in August 1939, was soon tarnished by the outbreak of war with Great Britain, an event he had assured Adolf Hitler would not occur in response to the Nazi invasion of Poland.2 In April 1945, Ribbentrop, who had long lost the ear of his beloved Fiihrer, was replaced in Admiral Karl Donitz's short-lived successor government by Arthur Seyss-Inquart. Given Ribbentrop's reputation among historians for incompetence, his ability to achieve and to hold on to high office is astounding. By members of the Nazi Party, Ribbentrop was always considered an outsider; he was neither a vicious anti-Semite like Julius Streicher nor a prototypical professional failure in the style of Joseph Goebbels. While his future comrades were battling Communists in the streets during the 1920s, Ribbentrop was cutting a figure in Berlin society. Emerging from the First World War almost penniless and with few prospects, by 1920 he had married Annelies Henkell, the daughter of a wealthy producer of sparkling wine. Taking advantage of his new family's connections, he set up a liquor import business. Although he would prove to be an ineffective diplomat, Ribbentrop
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".