Weltreisen, Weltwissen, Weltvergleich – Perspektiven der Forschung
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After giving an overview of the development of and recent trends in research on world travel literature of the 18th and 19th centuries, this article considers new research perspectives by linking world travel literature, the history of science, and the history of literary forms. While the latest research has drawn attention to the importance of studying the multiplicity of travels, contexts, practices, sources, logbooks, and travel reports, this essay identifies ‘comparison and comparing’ as a historical key concept in the making of world travels as a genre and a starting point for the formation of early global perceptions about science, nature, and cultural difference. After drawing on various travel authors like Georg Forster, George Vancouver, Alexander von Humboldt, and Adelbert von Chamisso, the article finally aims at identifying new research directions by reconstructing both groups of historical actors, the ‘natives’ and the sailing Europeans, as distant objects of ethnographic literary studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it