MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2330592268 · doi:10.1086/ahr.111.3.809

DAVID CURTIS WRIGHT. From War to Diplomatic Parity in Eleventh-Century China: Sung's Foreign Relations with Kitan Liao. (History of Warfare, volume 33.) Boston: Brill. 2005. Pp. xi, 287. $167.00

2006· article· en· W2330592268 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer W. Jay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAncient historyEmperorEleventhChinaWrightHistoryTreatyEmpireDiplomacyState (computer science)LawPolitical scienceArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Published on the millennium anniversary of the Treaty of Shan-yuan, David Curtis Wright's book appropriately commemorates the sworn oath and covenant between two strong rulers from two empires that clashed in eleventh-century Inner and East Asia. At that historic moment, the Chinese Sung dynasty (960–1276) and the Turko-Mongol Kitan Liao (916–1125) were equal in military strength and diplomatic infrastructure, if not in economic wealth, ethnicity, and size of population. When the Sung was founded in 960, Liao had already declared a state and created an empire that claimed the sixteen Chinese prefectures (including Beijing) and the Korean state of Parhae. The accumulated military hostility between Sung and Liao led to a critical stalemate in January 1005, when continued warfare would have devastated both empires. The Liao emperor, leading an invasion force and accompanied by the clear-headed empress dowager and an astute negotiation team, had arrived at Shan-yuan, only a hundred kilometers from the Sung capital of Kai-feng. The Sung emperor and his capable advisors were also at Shan-yuan to halt the Liao advance.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical Review→Same topicChinese history and philosophy→French-language works237,207→