MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381610812 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhad169

Adrian Shubert. <i>The Sword of Luchana: Baldomero Espartero and the Making of Modern Spain, 1793–1879</i>.

2023· article· en· W4381610812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Eastman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSWORDMaking-ofHistoryClassicsArtEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based in large part on never-before-seen private papers provided by the descendants of Baldomero Espartero, this book provides new insights into one of nineteenth-century Europe’s most intriguing public figures. Espartero ascended to the highest positions of power in the Spanish military and government. Along the way, he received popular acclaim and notoriety as well as requisite titles of nobility, his most noteworthy being the Count of Luchana and the Duke of Victory. A diachronic narrative history, The Sword of Luchana explores themes of national identity, gender, and historical memory. Shubert is at his best in humanizing his subject matter, although he admits that “we do not know what [Espartero] sought to achieve, beyond sustaining the monarchy” (14). He poses a crucial question by way of a conclusion: why was a general, renowned for having worked tirelessly for peace and reconciliation, virtually forgotten in modern Spain? The story of Espartero’s fame and rise to power is juxtaposed against the fact that he remains “essentially orphaned” today, with his scant recognition tinged by controversy in the revanchist Basque Country and Catalonia (352).

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207