Une Loi Extraordinaire: New Brunswick Acadians and the Conscription Crisis of the First World War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN THE LATE SUMMER OF 1917, at the apex of the First World War conscription crisis, Moniteur Acadien the arch-Conservative newspaper among the four French-language journaux of New Brunswick stated its clear position on the passage of the Dominion government's conscription bill, the Military Service Act (MSA): Le Moniteur reconnait que la loi du service militaire est une loi extraordinaire; mais aussi la situation dans la monde entier est extraordinaire. Les peuples de toutes les nations alliees sont appeles a faire de grands sacrifices, mais ces sacrifices sont faits dans l'espoir d'en eviter de plus grands et de plus penibles.1 Moniteur supported the decision of Sir Robert Borden's Union government to enact conscription, and the newspaper's opinion helps illustrate the complex reaction of the province's Acadians to the conscription crisis. In New Brunswick, Acadian support for voluntary enlistment and the overall war effort, and among the elite for the Military Service Act itself, co-existed with opposition to conscription. Acadian opposition was founded upon settlement and occupational factors rather than ethnic ones, but this objection was fostered by the self-seeking actions of the Anglophone majority and motivated by the commonly held, but patently false, assertion that all French Canadians were slackers who refused to enlist. Virtually all of New Brunswick's English-language politicians, military officers and newspapers espoused these unjust views openly while at the same time disregarding Acadian contributions to the war effort and ignoring other reasons for and other sources of anti-conscription sentiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".