ABOUT SOME PARALLELS IN HISTORY IN GENERAL A. STOSCH AND GRAND ADMIRAL A. TIRPITZ'S ACTIVITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The given article characterizes briefly the activities of two outstanding personalities in the history of Kaiser Naval Forces - General A. Shtosch and Grand Admiral A. Tirpitz. In spite of the time gap (about a quarter of the century) between their reforms, there are some parallels in history and the identity of their approaches to the answers to time calls can be observed. The significance of these factors is important for deeper understanding of the sources and the impressive results of the reformatory practice of "Father of the German Navy" A. Tirpitz. On the basis of the carried analysis of the available archival materials and some research literature the authors have come to certain conclusions. The scales and depth of the naval reorganization, carried out by A. Shtosch and A. Tirpitz, were defined by those foreign policy tasks which stood before the united German state in 1870s - the beginning of 1880s and at the end of 1890s - the first decade of the XX century. At the same time all the modernistic efforts of two naval heads of Germany were directed to the same spheres of naval construction, and in the solutions of the available problems we can note the unity of the principles. Summarizing the analysis of the activities of the two German naval leaders (A. Shtosh and A. Tirpitz), can be traced to certain historical parallels in their work. Both converters were the German Navy. It is clear that the scale of the reforms undertaken by them was determined by the foreign policy challenges that faced the country, but their character was a turning quite obvious, and that was considered in this article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".