MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024518338

Serbian Diplomatic Representatives in Constantinople from the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations to the Balkan Wars (1879–1912)

2020· article· en· W7024518338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of Philosophy (University of Belgrade) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBalkan and Eastern European Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerbianOttoman empireTurkishMinistry of Foreign AffairsDiplomacyCapital (architecture)Christian ministryQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the establishment of bilateral relations between Serbia and the Ottoman Empire in 1879, the most educated and capable persons has been appointed and sent to the post of deputies. The capital of the Ottoman Empire for Serb national, political, economic and cultural interests was of paramount importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century. From Istanbul, educational policy was co-ordinated among Serb compatriots, and a deputy in Constantinople was in charge of all Serbian consuls in the Turkish provinces. A very responsible and demanding place of the diplomatic representative of Serbia on the Bosphorus was occupied by eminent Serbian scientists, politicians, statesmen. In the above chronological period, we distinguish, by quality and intensity, two periods. The first (1879–1903) is characterized by constant progress, of a moderate pace, while the features of the second (1905–1912) are stalled, tensions and frequent incidents. The official reports, as well as the private correspondence of Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs from this era, are valuable testimonials and are a true data mine for studying not only political, but also educational, ethnographic, cultural and economic circumstances of the period.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.159 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of Philosophy (University of Belgrade)Same topicBalkan and Eastern European StudiesFrench-language works237,207