Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 1915, K.E. Royds, a Red Cross Relief worker, sailed through the Strait of Gibraltar and through the Mediterranean to Salonika. Her diary records the African coast, “an unknown world” no more than “a grey outline,” “dim in the morning mist.” “This is really heavenly! But there is nothing to say about it,” notes Royds. 1 On past Algiers seen in moonlight, “an unsubstantial faery thing,” and through Malta’s “narrow streets (some up steps) with overhanging balconies, and Eastern looking shops,” Royds arrives in Salonika and its “Turkish quarter” with “overhanging windows … narrow-latticed shutters … the harems, the gardens green, but enclosed with high walls.” 2 Royds, a war worker, writes while en route to a Greek city occupied by both British and French troops stationed there to support the Serbs in their fight for survival against invasion by German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian troops. 3 By spring 1916, the infamous Serbian retreat would have seen losses of around 200,000 troops and civilians. 4 Across the Aegean Sea, British, French, Indian, and ANZAC soldiers still fought in the disastrous Gallipoli campaign at the cost of some 250,000 casualties on the Allied side alone. 5 Yet Royds’s production of the exotic and the picturesque comes straight from the writings of Victorian and Edwardian travelers, such as Isabel Burton, Florence Nightingale, or Amelia Edwards. It is not that Royds is either ignorant or nave; she comments in the very same entry on the bad news from the Serbian war zone that “it is hard to realize what is happening north, above the hills.” 6 Neither is she atypical. For Royds and many others, whether soldiers or non-combatants, the war was an opportunity to travel on the edges of Europe’s borders and beyond. 7 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".