Beyond the Great War: Making Peace in a Disordered World, ed. Norman Ingram and Carl Bouchard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historians have written extensively about the end of the First World War and the birth of the new international order, ranging from Arno J. Mayer’s Political Origins of the New Diplomacy (1959) to Margaret MacMillan’s Peacemakers (2003). The centenary of the Great War has added to this vast historiography. We now know more, for example, about the global implications of the war and its aftermath. Most studies, however, still focus on a fairly narrow set of actors and spaces, and a brief period of time. Six months changed the world, the subtitle of MacMillan’s book suggests. But was 1919 really a fresh start? Can we reduce the sortie de guerre to the negotiations in Paris, and the effect that President Woodrow Wilson had on them? The editors and contributors in this volume reject the dominant view of the peace process. 1919 was not a zero hour, they argue, nor a moment of order. Instead, the chapters emphasise the disorder and discontent that shaped the peace well into the 1920s, including voices that went unheard by contemporary decision makers. The book is the result of a 2018 conference by a group of French and Anglo-American scholars and consequently focuses on France and the anglophone world. It has eleven chapters divided into three sections, which address the emergence of internationalism, the post-war discourse in France, and the perspectives of women and non-state groups. The authors draw on a range of archival records, some of them previously untapped, as well as recent scholarship, notably the influential studies by Robert Gerwarth and Erez Manela.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".