MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392021555 · doi:10.51644/9780889207875-fm

Front Matter

2006· paratext· en· W4392021555 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)Wilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront (military)PhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

USING EXAMPLES from the last two centuries, this collection of essays discusses the close links between technology and war. In the opening essay, distinguished historian William H. McNeill demonstrates the extent to which military technology has often led to differentiations among people, both within and between societies. The other studies examine various aspects of weapons technology, drawing on the histories of the armed forces of Britain, Prussia, and Australia, among others. Some of these illustrate how the adoption of new weaponry frequently depended as much on national pride and party politics as it did on the purely technical merits of the weapons involved; that financial considerations became increasingly primary in technological developments in the British army after World War I; and that decisions made prior to 1939 about the aviation technology to be developed for military purposes largely determined what kind of war the RAF was able to fight.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9300.895

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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