MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996703575 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhz1210

Mara Kozelsky. Crimea in War and Transformation.

2019· article· en· W2996703575 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Taki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryTransformative learningHistoryPopulationSpanish Civil WarJust war theoryAncient historyLawPolitical scienceSociologyPoliticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Western historical memory, the Crimean War is associated with the Charge of the Light Brigade, Florence Nightingale, and the end of the age of sail and the beginning of modern war journalism. In recent decades, historians have tried to go beyond this all-too-familiar picture by exploring the global dimension of this conflict or by telling its story from the Russian, or the Ottoman, perspective. Mara Kozelsky’s thoroughly researched and archival-based monograph Crimea in War and Transformation contributes significantly toward a more comprehensive understanding of one of the most important wars of the nineteenth century. Unlike many Western historians, she refuses to follow the well-trod path that took the French and the British soldiers to victory by way of Alma, Balaklava, and Inkerman. Nor does she have much to say about the efforts of the defenders of Sevastopol that have traditionally interested the Russian authors. Instead, Kozelsky offers “a study of the relationship between war and the social construction of landscapes” (11). The main character of her account is Crimea itself and its ethnically and religiously diverse civilian population under the traumatic and transformative impact of the war.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207