MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551870264 · doi:10.18357/tar71201615688

The Imperial German Navy, 1897 - 1918: Negotiating the nation

2016· article· en· W2551870264 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jesse Bachmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Arbutus Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyGermanEmpireScholarshipPremiseWorld War IINegotiationEconomic historySociologyPolitical scienceLawHistoryPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to analyze the linkages between the Imperial German Navy and Germany’s domestic sphere from the years 1897 to 1918. Prior scholarship has suggested that the expansion of the Imperial German Navy, beginning in 1897, was strongly caused by internal domestic factors. This article disagrees with this assertion, pointing out how international concerns were the main motivating factor. Nonetheless, the paper does accept the general premise that the navy played a strong role in Germany’s domestic sphere. To this end, this article analyzes how, prior to World War One, the navy was built into a national symbol aimed at overcoming the German empire’s regional particularities. This article then bridges a gap in existing scholarship by linking the pre-war symbolic importance of the navy to its experience during the war and the naval revolts that occurred in 1918. In particular, this article argues that the national idea codified in the navy prior to the war was then challenged by the navy’s generally poor experience during the First World War. This contributed to the naval revolts of 1918 which caused a reevaluation of the German nation and toppled the empire.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Arbutus ReviewSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207