MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246779114 · doi:10.1201/9781003029670-6

Tunnel warfare in World War I: The underground battlefield tunnels of Vimy Ridge, France

2020· book-chapter· en· W4246779114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Diederichs, D.J. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattlefieldRidgeMining engineeringGeologyEngineeringForensic engineeringPolitical scienceHistoryAncient historyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vimy Ridge was a critical battlefield on the Western Front during the first World War. The final battle (April 9-12, 1917) is a critical milestone in the building of Canada as a nation but was also a major turning point in the seemingly endless trench warfare of the day. The details of the final battle on the ground is well documented in literature, on television and in the movies of today. Less known is the underground warfare that took place at Vimy and across the front lines of WWI. Both sides used tunnelling to supply the front lines, to provide shelter for troops and to advance attacks under the enemy lines. The construction of the tunnels, the strategic design and the long- term stability and current status are matters of great interest. This work was brought about by a need to assess the potential for cave-ins or collapses during restoration works on the Vimy Ridge Monument. The tunnel layout and designs employed by both German and Allied forces are described. The tunnelling challenges of the day are discussed and the current mechanics of instability and long-term prognosis are explored along with a summary of modern site investigations and analysis. This investigation is undertaken within the important historical and human context of the tunnel network.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207