MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2479678221 · doi:10.1057/9780230504806_18

The Second Battle of Ypres — The Use of Gas in War

2005· book-chapter· en· W2479678221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Hughes, William Philpott

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveArtilleryBattlefieldFront (military)BattleGermanAdversaryEngineeringRifleAeronauticsHistoryLaunchedAncient historyOperations researchArchaeologyComputer securityElectrical engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O n 22 April 1915 the German army launched its only major offensive on the western front for 1915. To distract from the major offensive launched simultaneously on the eastern front (see Map 19), four divisions struck against the Canadian and French troops holding the northern flank of the Ypres salient. A new weapon supplemented the usual artillery bombardment — chlorine gas released from cylinders to float across the enemy’s trenches. Although not the first use of gas — both French and German armies had previously used tear-gas shells, with limited effect — the Ypres attack was the first occasion in which poison gas had a real tactical impact on the battlefield. It initiated a new era of industrialised warfare. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks→Same topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis→French-language works237,207→