MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ottomans

2017· book-chapter· en· W4248840742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Will Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueColumbia University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalityOttoman empireCitizenshipRealmQuarter (Canadian coin)State (computer science)PoliticsLawEmpirePolitical scienceAncient historyCensusHistorySociologyImmigrationPopulationDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians agree that Egypt was, for all intents and purposes, independent of the Ottoman empire by the last quarter of the century. This chapter examines legal rather than political citizenship, drawing on travel documents, census categories, and jurisdictional arguments in the realm of private international law. The twenty-thousand-odd Ottoman subjects residing in Alexandria at the turn of the century were not governed by the Capitulations, nor were they subjects of the Egyptian khedive. Both “local” and “foreign,” these Ottomans were imperial citizens at a time of rising nation-state nationality law.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0030.001
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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueColumbia University Press eBooksSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207