MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211079216 · doi:10.1017/9781108782067.008

Conclusion

2019· book-chapter· en· W4211079216 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Fantauzzo

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In August 1932, Field Marshal Lord Allenby, formerly the commander in chief of the EEF, spoke to members of the British Legion in Portmadoc, Wales. Many of the Welsh Legionaries in the small crowd had served with him in Palestine. 1 Others had likely been with the Welsh Regiment or the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Macedonia and Mesopotamia. Fourteen years after the war had ended, he informed the gathering, he still heard and was often pulled into ‘disputes as to which theatre of operations, which front or field of war, was the scene of worst hardship. France, Palestine, Salonika, Dardanelles, Mesopotamia, or elsewhere.’ On the day, Allenby was in no mood to put one campaign above the others. All had suffered equally. ‘From what I saw of war; in Flanders, France, Palestine, and Syria’, he told the Legionaries, ‘and from what I know, from others, on other fields; I am assured that, whether in East or West, or Sea or Land; from the ice and snow of Northern Russia, to the torrid heat of East and Central Africa there was nothing to choose’. 2 His speech, in any case, was meant to impress upon the crowd of ex-servicemen the folly of war and the need to learn from past mistakes at a time when the world political situation was deteriorating and disillusionment with the war, focused overwhelmingly on the horrors of the trenches of France and Flanders, was perhaps at its height.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2340.073

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207