C. C. Rafn, J. J. A. Worsaae, Archaeology, History and Danish National Identity in the Schleswig-Holstein Question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1789 and 1815 Europe was devastated by a series of intermittent Wars waged by the French. The first part came about through the French Revolution, the second, the Napoleonic Wars, were about Bonaparte’s thirst for conquest. Almost at the end of them, Denmark’s attempted neutrality was to cost her the loss of Norway by cessation to Sweden under the Treaty of Kiel in 1814. The Norwegians felt particularly aggrieved by this, a ploy on the part of the British to disarm the Scandinavians and retain British Naval access to the Baltic. Thus began a half a century of particular national insecurity for Denmark, during which she felt under constant threat from German ambition through an increasingly powerful, predatory Prussia. Schleswig-Holstein was particularly at risk of annexation, because though much of Slesvig was culturally and ethnically Danish, southern Jutland had been strongly infiltrated by German influences unchecked for many decades (Sandiford 1975: 21). With a small population (2,225,000 in 1848) and now detached from those potentially sympathetic in Scandinavia, Denmark would have difficulty effectively opposing any major industrial power. Britain and Germany aside, there was also Russia, still largely undeveloped, but a power with strong Baltic interests. Maintaining Denmark’s borders through this delicately balanced neutrality was not going to be easy for such a small nation state. Would it be remotely possible to achieve this passively by developing trade? Could enduring borders otherwise be protected by influencing perceptions of Denmark’s historic cultural identity and ethnicity?
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".