From a Modest Start to a Flourishing Marine Research Environment: The Institutional Development of Marine Geosciences in Kiel after World War II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a Modest Start to a Flourishing Marine Research Environment: The Institutional Development of Marine Geo sciences in Kiel after World War II 1. A Modest StartContrary to classical oceanography in Kiel (Zenk et al., 2018) the development of the marine geosciences at CAU (Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel)* was not linked to earlier and somewhat more modest beginnings of studies in marine geology in Kiel and other localities in Germany.Their development was therefore different from the new (after WW II) Institute of Marine Sciences (IfM) of CAU which was able to draw on the legacy of its predecessors in Berlin and in Kiel.The new IfM grew quickly beyond the means of a regular university institute and Günter Dietrich succeeded in having it transferred 1968 to the "Blaue Liste" Institutes (later called Leibniz Institutes) which were co-funded in equal shares by the local and the federal (West-) German governments.None of this did at first apply to the marine geology working group which developed at the CAU's Institute for Geology and Paleontology (GPI).But as for the new postwar Kiel IfM the participation of the marine geologists from Kiel in the International Indian Ocean Expedition (IIOE, 1960(IIOE, -1965)), made possible through the availability of the new research vessel Meteor, meant a quantum leap in possibilities, perspectives and internationality (McElheny, 1964).It allowed this marine geology group to become a major player, both on the national scene and in an international context, with important incentives for the later development of the marine sciences in Kiel.The German participation in the IIOE, the second part being led by ma-*A list of all acronyms used this article is given on pp.138-140.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".