MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080087348 · doi:10.25162/9783515126601

Die Lehren des Luftkriegs

2020· book· de· W3080087348 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFranz Steiner Verlag eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Science FoundationAdvanced Research Projects AgencyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyHuman Resources Research InstituteNational Security Agency
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<P>Wie viele Bomben braucht es, bis eine Gesellschaft zusammenbricht? Sophia Dafinger untersucht eine Gruppe sozialwissenschaftlicher Experten in den USA, für die der Zweite Weltkrieg ein großes Forschungslaboratorium war. Der <I>United States Strategic Bombing Survey</I> bildet den Ausgangspunkt für die Frage, wie die Lehren des Luftkriegs nach 1945 von den Experten des Luftkriegs formuliert, verbreitet, aber dann auch wieder vergessen wurden. Dafingers Beitrag zu einer modernen Gewalt- und Konfliktgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts thematisiert die Rolle der Wissenschaften in demokratischen Staatswesen – eine Geschichte, deren Auswirkungen bis in unsere Gegenwart reichen.</P><br><P>"Sophia Dafinger's book contributes powerfully to our understanding of how air forces around the world embraced the amorphous concept of civilian 'morale' as one of the primary targets of strategic bombing. Drawing on the under-utilized records of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, she reveals the unusually large influence of social scientists in American bombing campaigns not only in World War II, but also in the Korean and Vietnam Wars."</P><I><br><P>Sheldon Garon, Princeton University</P></I><br><P>"Wer mehr über das wechselvolle Verhältnis von Politik und wissenschaftlicher Beratung wissen möchte, sollte dieses wunderbare Buch zur Hand nehmen. Kurzweilig erzählt Sophia Dafinger am Beispiel der USA als stärkster Luftstreitmacht der 'westlichen' Welt gleichsam die Sozial-, Erfahrungs- und Wissensgeschichte des modernen Krieges und eine Geschichte der Sozialwissenschaften im 20. Jahrhundert."</P><I><br><P>Kerstin Brückweh, Universität Erfurt</P></I><br><P>"An der Schnittstelle von Sozialwissenschaft, Politik und Militär diskutiert Sophia Dafinger, wie man sich in den USA nach 1945 den Luftkrieg der Zukunft vorstellte – ein glänzender Beitrag zur Gesellschaftsgeschichte des Kalten Krieges mit zahlreichen Anregungen für die Gegenwart."</P><I><br><P>Bernd Greiner, Berliner Kolleg Kalter Krieg</P></I>

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.240 · 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