MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324359702 · doi:10.1080/15740773.2023.2183784

The Battle of the Seelow Heights, April 1945: conflict archaeology in the forests of Eastern Brandenburg, Germany

2022· article· en· W4324359702 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Weber, David G. Passmore, David Capps-Tunwell, H. G. W. Davie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Conflict Archaeology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattleSurrenderArchaeologyScrutinyHistoryConflict archaeologyBattlefieldWorld War IIGeographyAncient historyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the final days of World War II, the Red Army’s Berlin Operation culimnated in the capture of the Reich’s capital and the unconditional surrender of the Wehrmacht. Between 16 and 19 April 1945, the most intense fighting of the operation ensued in what is now called the Battle of the Seelow Heights. Due to the vast quantities of men and matériel involved in the fighting, an extensive militarised landscape has developed within the forests of East Brandenburg that has largely evaded archaeological scrutiny. A combination of airborne laser scanning data, archival research, and GIS-analysis reveals a highly diverse archaeological assemblage, including trenches, firing positions, dugouts, logistics facilities, along with other types of war- and conflict-related infrastructure. This unprecedented degree of preservation distinguishes the Seelow battlefield from other WWII contexts in Europe and provides a unique opportunity to investigate the combat activities and supply infrastructures of two combatting forces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Conflict ArchaeologySame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207