MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559766262 · doi:10.3138/cjh.40.3.431

“Revanche ou Relèvement”: The French Peace Movement Confronts Alsace and Lorraine, 1871-1918

2005· article· en· W2559766262 on OpenAlex
Michael Clinton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeace movementMilitarismInternationalism (politics)Political scienceAssertionPatriotismTribunalEthosSociologyDominance (genetics)LawPolitical economyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of Alsace and Lorraine had a profound influence in shaping the identity and program of the French peace movement between 1871 and 1918. It framed the French peace movement’s attitudes on specific issues ranging from national self-determination to the arms race and led French peace advocates to emphasize their essential patriotism without contradicting their commitment to the principles of internationalism. As a result, the French peace movement linked revanchism to the creation of an international tribunal that would resolve the question of Alsace and Lorraine through juridical methods. The French peace movement’s connections to republicanism underlay its assertion that the question of the provinces had to be resolved as a prerequisite to assuring international peace. If not, the alternative would be the dominance of militarism as the ethos of international relations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.171 · 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