Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eight months after the start of World War I, almost 1,500 women – from neutral and “belligerent” nations – congregated in the Netherlands for four days to discuss how to achieve international peace. From April 28 to May 1, 1915, at the International Congress of Women at The Hague, the participants concurred that international disputes “should be settled by pacific means” and “the parliamentary franchise should be extended to women” who then would have a say in deciding between war or peace. In spite of the fact that travel was made difficult by war, 12 nations participated with the following number of members: Australia, 6; Belgium, 5; Canada, 2; Denmark, 6; Germany, 28; Great Britain, 3 (180 others were prevented from attending due to the closing of the North Sea for military reasons); Hungary, 9; Italy, 1; the Netherlands, 1,000; Norway, 12; Sweden, 12; and the United States, 47. The women who gathered also received messages of solidarity from women from Argentina to Romania.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.044 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".