MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W262717560 · doi:10.3138/cjh.47.3.515

The Sensitivities of Small, Backward Nations: Austria-Hungary, Serbia, and the Regulation of the Danube 1870-71

2012· article· en· W262717560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian D. Armour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBalkans: History, Politics, Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerbianMonarchyState (computer science)Government (linguistics)Multinational corporationPolitical scienceEmpireBlack seaForeign policyAncient historyEconomyEconomic historyLawHistoryEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the importance of the Danube as a potential conduit for commerce, efforts to render it fully navigable were impeded until the late nineteenth century by the difficulty of securing an international agreement. Based on hitherto unpublished Hungarian and other sources, this article analyzes the failure of the Habsburg Monarchy’s attempt to gain the support of Serbia for Danubian regulation at the Black Sea Conference of 1871. Thanks to the interference of the Hungarian government in the Monarchy’s Serbian policy, Serbian suspicions of Austria-Hungary, and the Serbian government’s sensitivities as to what few rights it had as a vassal principality of the Ottoman Empire, Serbia sided with the opponents of regulation. The mismanagement of the Austro-Serbian relationship serves as an object lesson for powerful states in how not to handle relations with weaker states, as well as an illustration of the complexities of foreign policy in a multinational state.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicBalkans: History, Politics, SocietyFrench-language works237,207