MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392524388 · doi:10.4467/k7501.45/22.23.18050

Baltic Germans in the Russian Imperial Navy: Navigators, Explorers, and Contributors to Place Naming

2023· book-chapter· en· W4392524388 on OpenAlexaff
W. Ährens, Sheila Embleton

Bibliographic record

VenueJagiellonian University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyHistoryAncient historyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the 13th century onwards, Germans spread northeastwards along the Baltic coast, the area now occupied by Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the St. Petersburg region of Russia, and Finland. Most of these Germans were active as merchants. While for most of this period Lithuania had Poland as an overlord and Finland had Sweden, in Estonia, Livonia, and Courland (now Estonia and Latvia) the Germans soon formed the ruling class. Not only were they merchants, landowners and military leaders, but they also basically formed the government of these regions. In 1710, Russia became the new overlord of these regions. As a result, the Germans in this area were obliged to serve in the Russian Imperial forces. The Germans rapidly gained leading positions in these forces. In the Russian Imperial Navy, Baltic German captains sailed in the North Pacific area, particularly along the coasts of Siberia and Alaska. We will look at some of these captains and their role in naming places they visited and having places named after them. Among the most prominent are Adam Johann von Krusenstern, Ferdinand von Wrangel, Fabian von Bellingshausen and Otto von Kotzebue.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 venueJagiellonian University Press eBooksSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207