MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W79726237 · doi:10.3138/cjh.36.3.471

“The Winston of Germany”: The British Foreign Policy Élite and the Last German Emperor

2001· article· en· W79726237 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. G. Otte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanEmperorForeign policyPersonaEconomic historyPolitical sciencePersonalityLawSociologyHistoryAncient historyPsychologyArtHumanitiesPsychoanalysisPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the perception of Kaiser Wilhelm II by the British foreign policy élite from the mid-1880s to 1914. Drawing on regular diplomatic reporting by Britain’s representatives abroad as well as a wide range of private papers, it examines a series of seemingly minor incidents, which nevertheless played a significant role in shaping British establishment views of the last German Emperor. One of the key elements of British élite perceptions was the Kaiser’s assumed, rumoured, and frequently commented-upon mental instability. The article seeks to demonstrate that Wilhelm’s idiosyncrasies were of greater significance in the formulation of British policy towards Germany than has been previously acknowledged. British concerns about the Kaiser’s flawed personality did not arise sporadically in response to his better known “outbursts” but were constantly present. As such they did not simply mirror the manifold problems with which Anglo-German relations were increasingly fraught after the turn of the century. On the contrary, the Kaiser’s perceived public and private persona was one of these problems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207