MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083271443 · doi:10.1353/his.2014.0039

Sabotage, Security, and Border-Crossing Culture: The Detroit River during the First World War, 1914-1918

2014· article· fr· W2083271443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brandon Dimmel

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindsorGermanBorder crossingAdversaryBorder SecurityWorld War IIGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceFirst world warPopulationEconomic historyLawPolitical economyHistorySociologyImmigrationAncient historyDemographyComputer securityArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article porte sur le sabotage, la sécurité et la culture du passage de la frontière dans la région de la rivière Détroit au cours de la Première Guerre mondiale. Il fait ressortir qu’à la lumière des profondes relations socioéconomiques transnationales existant au cours des années d’avant-guerre, peu de résidents de Windsor auraient pensé s’inquiéter d’être la cible potentielle d’Américains d’origine allemande - sujets d’un pays ennemi - établis à Detroit. Tirés subitement de leur naïveté en juin 1915 lors de l’explosion d’une fabrique d’uniformes, les habitants de Windsor se sont remis sans tarder de leurs craintes liées à la frontière et à la population allemande de Detroit. La confrontation les opposera plutôt au gouvernement fédéral qui, dans les années suivant l’attaque, cherche à imposer de strictes conditions de traversée dans une section jusqu’alors perméable de la frontière internationale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207