MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2375913094 · doi:10.7771/1481-4374.2719

Fodor’s Field Diary and the Writing of the Hungarian Imperial Self during World War I

2015· article· en· W2375913094 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

VenueCLCWeb Comparative Literature and Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCyprus History, Politics, Society
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersEötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
KeywordsField (mathematics)ScrutinyExistentialismGeopoliticsHistoryNegotiationGeographerPersianLiteratureSociologyArtPhilosophySocial scienceEpistemologyPoliticsLawPolitical scienceGeographyCartographyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his article "Fodor's Field Diary and the Writing of the Hungarian Imperial Self during World War I" Steven A.E. Jobbitt analyses a field diary written by the Hungarian geographer and botanist, Ferenc Fodor, who took part in a two-week geobotanical expedition to Bosnia-Hercegovina in the summer of 1917. Sponsored by the Hungarian Academy of Science, the expedition was part of a much broader Austro-Hungarian imperialist project in the Balkans during World War I. Close scrutiny of Fodor's field diary as a particular form of life writing provides important insight into the masculine-imperialist fantasies that informed Hungary's mapping of the Balkans as both a geopolitical and civilizational space, and in so doing points to the conceptual tensions and existential anxieties that lay at the center of Fodor's own conception and negotiation of self. Jobbitt's analysis suggests that although not obvious, Fodor's field diary written during World War I represents "trauma" in its both personal and extended perspectives.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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