MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039347938 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhaa249

Nikolay Antov. The Ottoman “Wild West”: The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.

2020· article· en· W3039347938 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Ostapchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierFifteenthAncient historyOrder (exchange)HistoryPopulationPeriod (music)Character (mathematics)ArtArchaeologySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nikolay Antov’s The Ottoman “Wild West”: The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, with the enticing and somewhat jolting “Wild West” in its title, is not about an equivalent of cowboys and Indians battling in a wide-open “Great Plains” steppe borderland. However, it has dervishes—some as half-naked mendicant gurus menacing the insufficiently pious or overly imperious with wooden clubs, others as mounted ghazi warriors, and yet others as convent-building and village-founding monks. The book also features a group of originally Anatolian, semi-nomadic, and Shiʾi-minded Turcomans, who were a mainstay of early Ottoman conquests in southeastern Europe, though who were at the same time antipathetic to the Ottoman order. We learn how by the end of the sixteenth century, by both counteracting and leveraging dervish networks and Turcoman tribes, the Ottomans transformed a remote, underpopulated, and underinstitutionalized “internal frontier” zone into an area densely populated by a largely heterodox Muslim majority compliant with Ottoman rule. The Turkic and largely non-Sunni Muslim character of the population continued over the centuries, and even today there are localities with a strong presence of so-called Alevi-Beshiktashis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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