MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503129339 · doi:10.1057/9780230504806_40

Empires at War

2005· book-chapter· en· W2503129339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Hughes, William Philpott

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpireIndigenousWhite (mutation)ChinaAncient historySpanish Civil WarHistoryGeographyEthnologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

W hen war broke out in 1914, the protagonists’ empires automatically joined. Britain’s imperial contribution varied between the ‘white’ (Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand and South Africa), ‘brown’ (India) and ‘black’ (Africa/West Indies) dominions/ colonies. While ‘white’, ‘brown’ and ‘black’ dominions all provided combat troops, black African soldiers (some 56,000) were usually deployed outside Europe. Britain, however, employed black Africans in labour units in Europe. Excepting India, in 1914 Britain’s imperial territories had tiny armies supported by part-time militias. Once war started, the white dominions had to create expeditionary forces from scratch. Meanwhile, France recruited indigenous soldiers from her empire in Africa and Indo-China for the war fronts and for labour duties behind the lines. Belgium and Portugal also tapped the resources of their empires, as did Russia, whose land-based empire stretched into the Caucasus, Central Asia and Siberia. 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207