MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231325648 · doi:10.1086/ahr/108.5.1420

<scp>Jennifer Siegel</scp>. <i>Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia</i>. London and New York: I. B. Tauris. 2002. Pp. xviii, 273. $39.50

2003· article· en· W4231325648 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith Neilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoviet and Russian History
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChess endgameCentral asiaHistoryAncient historyClassicsEconomic history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal Article Jennifer Siegel. Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia. London and New York: I. B. Tauris. 2002. Pp. xviii, 273. $39.50 Get access Siegel Jennifer. Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia. London and New York: I. B. Tauris. 2002. Pp. xviii, 273. $39.50. Keith Neilson Keith Neilson Royal Military College of Canada Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 108, Issue 5, December 2003, Pages 1420–1421, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/108.5.1420 Published: 01 December 2003

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicSoviet and Russian HistoryFrench-language works237,207