THE DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TWO ENGLISH TRAVELLERS; FRED BURNABY AND SIR JOHN MANDEVILLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study consists of two parts. The first part is about Fred Burnaby who was a well-known English officer and traveller. He travelled to many countries as well as Anatolia. The main reason why he visited Anatolia was that he had heard some rumours claiming that Turks were impaling Christians in Anatolia and he wanted to do something about it. Therefore, he decided to travel to Anatolia to see whether those rumours were true. In the first part of the study, his opinions about Anatolia, Turks and Minorities as well as such motives as climate, accommodation, education and route are dealt with. Through the second part, another traveller, Sir John Mandeville takes place. Mandeville, like Fred Burnaby, was also a conservative Christian; he was an English Knight. He also travelled not only to Anatolia but to many other countries as well. His main aim was to follow a route through Anatolia to go to Jerusalem, the Christian Holy Land, and visit this city. He did so and while going to Jerusalem, he travelled through Asia Minor, and thus he wrote about Anatolia, Turks and Minorities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".