MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380442455 · doi:10.1017/9781800107779.003

War Diary for 1915

2010· other· en· W4380442455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryComputer scienceAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This was a year when the British Army learned many things, mostly from disasters in the various offensives that it launched. On the Western Front most offensives ended up as failures, and the British Army was not alone in this – the French and Germans suffered in just the same way. The main reason was that defensive technology (trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, high calibre shells and quick fire breach loading artillery) all favoured the defensive and an army well dug-in and equipped could usually withstand any attack. In addition, communications, or rather the lack of reliable communications, always hampered the offensive forces. Because the telephone was unreliable (lines were usually cut by shell fire) and the field radio not yet in use, commanders in the front line had to rely on runners or pigeons to relay reports of the situation on the ground. Similarly, the commanders well behind the lines relied on the same methods to issue orders in response. By the time the message arrived the situation had probably changed sufficiently to render the orders difficult or even impossible to follow. The major actions on the Western Front involving British troops in this year are outlined below. Neuve-Chapelle, 10 to 12 March 1915 This attack by the British IV Corps and the Indian Corps was an outstanding success on the first day, largely due to the weight of the artillery barrage. The second day saw a series of largely fruitless and extremely costly attacks against newly consolidated German positions. The Germans counterattacked on 12 March but gained little ground. Any further British plans for attacks were then shelved. Official British casualties were 11,652 killed, wounded and missing. The Germans probably lost a broadly similar figure. The 2nd Bedfords were in brigade reserve and did not take a prominent part in the first two days. They were more heavily engaged in counter-attacks on the 12th and Captain C.C. Foss won a Victoria Cross in retaking a trench with 49 prisoners. The battalion lost 86 men killed, wounded and missing on this day. Second Battle of Ypres, 22 April to 25 May 1915 This battle saw the first successful use of poison gas in warfare when the Germans overran positions north of Langemark held by French Algerian troops but were fought off by the 1st Canadian Division on their flank.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.144
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207