Identity of German Bohemians (Sudeten Germans) Through Local Culture and Heritage in the Upper Nisa Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There was considerable focus on local culture and heritage in the last quarter of the 19th century in the regions with a predominantly German Bohemians population. Regional identity was shaped to a significant extent by publications on local culture and heritage ("Heimatkunde"), often designed for teaching in schools. With the German-speaking population spread out around the periphery of Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia, there was no obvious centre for formation of German Bohemians identity and for a long time there was no uniform character to that identity. It was then manifested most strongly in the various regions. This dissertation is based on analysis and comparison of Heimatkunde publications. I have defined categories for examination of Heimatkunde: landscape (geography), heritage (history), progress (modernity) and people (ethnography), which correspond to the original breakdown of Heimatkunde and are also considered relevant by authors looking at the development of national movements. Definition of group identity is dominated by nationalism, especially as regards the second half of the 19th century and the first third of the 20th century. The focus of this dissertation is comparison of Heimatkunde publications from three neighbouring areas in the Upper Neisse region, differing primarily...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".