MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142543598 · doi:10.1556/aorient.58.2005.1.2

Nomadic Power, Sedentary Security, and the Crossbow

2005· article· en· W2142543598 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orientalia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)RepertoireRepetition (rhetorical device)Byzantine architecturePolitical scienceComputer securityPolitical economyHistorySociologyAncient historyComputer scienceArtLiteraturePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The threats, both real and perceived, posed by pastoral nomadic peoples to the security of sedentary societies and states are too well known to bear repetition here. Civilised states were not always completely helpless before the onslaughts of nomadic warriors and could sometimes choose from a repertoire of diplomatic, tactical, and strategic measures and cautions in response to present or imminent nomadic attacks. This article, which draws on Chinese, Byzantine, and European sources, surveys several of these measures and ends with a more in-depth consideration of crossbows and other arcuballistae. It concludes that these were often the most effective weapons for fighting nomadic cavalrymen.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.271 · 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