MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1588347466

Operations of 1 Canadian Infantry Divisional Artillery, 24 August-22 September 1944

2003· article· en· W1588347466 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lee Windsor

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfantryArtilleryAeronauticsOperations researchOperations managementEngineeringComputer scienceHistoryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 1944 1st Canadian Infantry Division reverted to command of I Canadian Corps after seven months of campaigning in Sicily and Italy under a British Corps. The story of the division’s resentment toward the level of paperwork foisted on them by H.D.G. Crerar’s untried corps headquarters is legendary. Modern military historians assume this rancour is indicative of a 1914–18 mindset among Second World War Canadian senior officers which prevented them from adapting to the fast–paced nature of modern mechanized warfare in the 1940s.1 Ironically, much of that “paper–pushing” appears to have contributed to the Canadian Army’s victories over German forces in the great battles of 1944–45.\nAmong the most labourious administrative chores were the operational narratives and lessons learned reports requiring battle participants to analyze recent actions and draw conclusions for improving combat efficiency. These reports do indeed date back to the Great War. Most First World War historians agree that such documents were a key ingredient to the remarkable success of the Canadian Corps in 1915–1918.2\nThe following report was prepared by the 1st Canadian Divisional Artillery staff in late September 1944, during the brief pause between the breakthrough of the Gothic and Rimini Lines and the subsequent pursuit into the Po Valley. In the weeks prior to that pause, I Canadian Corps suffered their heaviest losses to date against the most determined German resistance encountered during the Italian Campaign. They also demonstrated remarkable military skill and professionalism, and won their greatest victories of the entire war.\nReaders may note that the report is tightly focussed on exacting every possible ounce of combat power out of an already effective organization. Continual refinements to the Anglo–Canadian system were essential given that Alliedforces in Italy usually possessed the barest minimum of resources necessary to accomplish their strategic mission of preventing German formations from withdrawing to more decisive fronts. Similar reports are found in the war diaries of all units and formations in the Canadian Army in the Second World War. What is most significant about this process is the rapidity with which recommended improvements were put into practice during subsequent operations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.012

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→