MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366185786 · doi:10.1515/9781685852061-002

Foreword

2001· book-chapter· bn· W4366185786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dennis E. Showalter

Bibliographic record

VenueLynne Rienner Publishers eBooks · 2001
Typebook-chapter
Languagebn
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining operational effectiveness and determining how it is established are once again among the central questions of military history.Temporarily eclipsed by a focus on the general social, cultural, and economic factors of warmaking, the issue of combat performance is increasingly recognized as the sine qua non of armed forces, even those with a domestic, constabulary orientation.That subject is particularly vital in the context of World War II.Since 1945 a virtual cult of the Wehrmacht has emerged among its former enemies.Books, magazines, and films pay tribute to its fighting power.Even when acknowledging its weaknesses at the levels of strategy and policy, even when accepting the role of Nazification in its effectiveness, this school continues to praise in particular the German Army's virtuosity at operational and tactical levels.At times it seems as though the German generals allowed the Allies to win the war out of kindness.Allied military performance is generally treated condescendingly.The British and American armies in particular are dismissed as lacking fighting spirit, tactical skill, and operational virtuosity, depending on numbers and material superiority to win victories by the low common denominator of attrition.Recent challenges to this paradigm fall into three categories.One approach, exemplified by Ken Tout's narratives of the fighting in the Anglo-Canadian sector, stresses the difficulties of conducting offensive operations, going so far as to argue that the normal result of attacks is either defeat or a too-costly advance, and that the outcome of battle should be judged against an expectation of failure.A second perspective, illustrated by the work of Stephen Ambrose, proffers anecdotal arguments that Allied soldiers were in fact motivated to fight, and fought well throughout the northwest Europe campaign.The focus of the third challenge is expressed in the title of one of its best-known examples.Keith Bonn's When the Odds Were Even argues that under conditions when their air and artillery superixi

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7420.693

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLynne Rienner Publishers eBooksSame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207