MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W73337174

The Two World Wars That Shaped the 20th Century

2002· article· en· W73337174 on OpenAlex
Lewis Bernstein

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMilitary review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld War IICommunismGermanSpanish Civil WarLawEconomic historyHistoryPolitical scienceAncient historyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MR Review Essay The 20th century was shaped by two world wars. The result of World War I was the collapse of the German, Austrian, Turkish, and Russian empires that gave rise to fascism and communism. World War II hastened the end of European colonial empires in Africa and the Far East and brought about the emergence of two super powers-the United States and the Soviet Union. In The Great World War, 1914-- 1945: Volume 1, Lightning Strikes Twice (HarperCollins Publishers, London, 2001) and The Great World War, 1914-1945: Volume 2, Who Won? Who Lost? The Peoples' Experience (HarperCollins Publishers, London, 2001), editors Peter Liddle, John Bourne, and Ian Whitehead compare the experiences of the various nations in the two conflicts and question the received wisdom commonly associated with them. Volume I concentrates on military affairs. Volume 2 deals with each war's effeet on the societies within the countries involved in the conflict. The editors remind readers of the wars' similarities despite a tendency of most analysts to emphasize the differences between them. World War I is usually seen as bad; it was an avoidable conflict, directed by incompetents, which resulted in mass slaughter in the trenches on the Western Front. Historians see World War II as being a good war; it was an unavoidable conflict against monstrous tyrannies directed by relatively competent generals who used high-- tech methods to move across battlefields at relatively small cost. As these volumes remind us, such views are not completely true. Massive atrocities in World War I foreshadowed those in World War II. The 1914-1918 commanders were about as competent as their 1939-1945 successors. The British Experience In the 33 comparative essays in Volume 1, Lightning Strikes Twice, the mostly British scholars write about experiences on the frontlines, in leadership, and of occupation. The topics of individual chapters include the following: * Relations between major coalition warfare partners, such as Britain and France; Britain and the United States; and Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. * Comparisons in military and political leadership, in particular that of the principal British generals and England's prime ministers Lloyd George and Winston Churchill as well as German strategist Erich Ludendorff, Japanese General Hideki Tojo, French marshal Ferdinand Foch, U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Russian commanders Aleksey Brusilov and Georgi Zhukov. * The effects of occupation in Belgium, France, and Poland and of genocide in Armenia in 1915 and Romania in 1942. The Peoples' Experience Volume 2, Who Won? Who Lost? The Peoples' Experience, has a broader scope than Volume 1. The first part explores the far-ranging implications of total war and how they affected the societies of Canada, South Africa, the United States, India, New Zealand, Russia, Italy, China, Australia, the Balkans, Japan, India, the Arab world, and the African empires of Britain and France. These chapters also detail how the Netherlands and Sweden fared as neutrals. Many of the chapters are sketchy, attempt to cover too much ground, or are drawn too narrowly. However, each chapter contains useful bibliographical references, casts light on unknown aspects of the wars, or indicates areas for future research. The second part of this volume concentrates on cultural experiences and is narrowly drawn, limning the ways in which British artists, writers, and the entertainment industry responded to the wars. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · 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