MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110891506

Российско-китайские отношения в первой четверти ХХ в.: монгольский вопрос

2015· article· ru· W2110891506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Виктор Борисович Базаров

Bibliographic record

VenueВласть · 2015
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsChinaIndependence (probability theory)Ancient historyKazakhIdeologyQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryEmpirePeriod (music)Political scienceEconomic historyGeographyPoliticsLawPhilosophyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the Russian-Chinese relations in the first quarter of the 20th century concerning the Mongolian question. The period was characterized by serious changes in a geopolitical situation in East Asia. Xinhai revolution had marked the end of the Qing Empire. Independence of Mongolia became actual and possible due to the changes in China. Russia supported separatist sentiments of External Mongolia. The author shows dynamics of the events which occurred after the capture of Urga. It actually provoked the explosion of the anti-Chinese moods which pushed to exile of the Chinese troops from the territory of External Mongolia with the help of such ideological opponents as the red Mongols and the troops of baron Ungern. Returning of External Mongolia to the bosom of China in the first quarter of the 20th century became problematic, and even impossible.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueВластьSame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207