Hai visto i Canadesi?: A study of the Social Interactions between Canadian Soldiers and Italian Civilians before, during, and after the Battle of Ortona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is the first study to examine Canadian and Italian interactions in Ortona from December 1943 until April 1944. The Canadian presence in Ortona is not remembered by the people of the town simply in the context of military operations. As the Canadians occupied Ortona and the surrounding areas for four months, interactions occurred within the context of combat operations, periods of relaxation, and throughout the process of rebuilding infrastructure and developing an economy. Canadian military historians have largely neglected to provide accounts of the various engagements between Canadian soldiers and Italian civilians before, during, and after the Battle of Ortona, unless they affected operations, intelligence, and civil control. The result of these civil-military relationships provided numerous benefits to Canadian and Italian alike. Italians provided Canadian soldiers with intelligence, shelter, food, and psychological support. In turn, the Canadians provided the Italians with medical assistance, food, financial support, and technical support in the rebuilding of Ortona. The interactions promoted Canadians as separate from the other Allied forces in the region and created unique friendships that defined the liberator and the liberated through their mutual dependencies. As historians have focused entirely on the unfolding of military operations in the region of Ortona, this thesis argues that the value of the interactions and the reconstruction process help explain why most Ortonesi developed a positive collective memory of Canadian soldiers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".