MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579646789 · doi:10.3138/jcs.45.1.90

“It Would Be Best to Leave Us Alone”: First Nations Responses to the Canadian War Effort, 1914-18

2011· article· en· W1579646789 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert J. Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmPatriotismHistoriographySpanish Civil WarAmbivalenceResistance (ecology)IndigenousWorld War IIPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryLawPsychologySocial psychologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early histories of the Great War emphasized the more patriotic and enthusiastic contributions of First Nations to the Canadian war effort. Situated in a more recent historiography, the present work applies new anecdotal and statistical evidence to explore the ambivalence and resistance that characterized the wartime responses of countless other First Nations peoples. First Nations responses to patriotic funding drives and to enlistment in particular were informed by a complex set of priorities and circumstances that both reflected and differed from those of Euro-Canadians. On balance, it can be said that First Nations peoples demonstrated significant reticence towards the war effort, and that the apparent enthusiasm of some was seldom driven by patriotism. While the country’s Indigenous war heroes deserve a prominent place in Canadian history, then, the stories of those people who did not respond to the war effort with enthusiasm must also be told in order to understand the heterogeneity of First Nations’ Great War experiences better.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0500.019
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207