Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical analysis of Canada's recruitm ent for the war effort has three main themes.The first is that the government undertook to raise an expeditionary force too large to be maintained by voluntary enlistment.As a result, conscription for overseas service had to be imposed, creating enduring rifts between regions and linguistic groups.The second is that too few Canadian-born men enlisted.The third is that the low enlistment rate among French-Canadians was a national embarrassment.This paper examines the regional patterns of enlistment, evaluates the arguments advanced to explain the French-Canadian ambivalence to the war, and concludes that conscription was necessary E v a l u a t i o n s o f C a n a d a 's military contribution to the First World War generally incorporate three themes: that voluntary enlistment fell short of the need; that Canadian-born men did not do their fair share; and that the shortcomings of the national effort 1 The first version of this paper appeared thirty years ago.See C.A. Sharpe, "Enlistment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-1918: A Regional Analysis," Journal of Canadian Studies 18 (1984), 15-29.No new data have become available since then although efforts to refine our knowledge of Great War enlistments are ongoing.For example, see Jonathan F. Vance, "Provincial Patterns of Enlistment in the Canadian Expeditionary Force," Canadian Military History 17 (2008), 75-78.This paper consolidates and refines some of the data on Canada's military contribution to the War and corrects some errors of calculation.It also integrates some of the new scholarship relevant to a critical evaluation of the three themes outlined in the opening paragraph.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".