MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332001502 · doi:10.1093/ehr/cet133

The First World War: Personal Experience

2013· article· en· W2332001502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrian Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueThe English Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsLibrary scienceState (computer science)Order (exchange)Service (business)HistoryElement (criminal law)EmpireDimension (graph theory)Political scienceMedia studiesLawSociologyComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collections made available through this digital tool were brought together with the assistance of a highly distinguished advisory panel of historians. Although the title ‘personal experiences’ implies that it deals with the most intimate sources, in fact a great deal of the material presented here is very much generated within the public discourse of the war: it would be more accurate to describe this as a ‘social history’ in order to embrace that dimension. It is not particularly concerned with the high politics of the war or military strategy and it is primarily focused on service experiences rather than civilians, but it does not entirely ignore these matters. This tool brings together important collections from the Cambridge University Library, the Württemberg state library, the McMaster University Library in Canada (which holds Vera Brittain’s papers), the Brotherton Library at the University of Leeds, the New Zealand National Library and several museums and private collections. It includes maps, posters, photographs and paintings as well as diaries and letters, but the largest element is published primary sources, particularly ‘trench journals’ from the United Kingdom, Germany, the British Empire and the United States.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe English Historical ReviewSame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207