Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review considers the proceedings of an international conference held between 15 and 18 May 2014 in Mežotne (Latvia) and the issues discussed there. 25 scholars from Great Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, the US, and Canada discussed the nature of the Napoleonic Empire and the international relations of the turn of the 19th century, the peculiarities of the internal processes taking place in Russia, the role of certain military and government officials during the era, relations between the local population of the occupied territories and the occupational authorities, and propaganda and the representation of victories, as well as communicative and cultural memory. The participants pointed out considerable changes in the historical interpretation of the Napoleonic wars, which have manifested themselves both through the retreat from traditional military and historical discourse and through new methodological approaches. A notable internalisation of research strategies has occurred: this can be observed not only in how Russian and Eastern European historians now familiarise themselves with the methodological achievements of the Western humanities, but also in how Western European and American scholars have started to actively use the works of their Eastern European peers and to enlarge their source bases by referring to Russian archives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".