Remembrance, Retrospection, and the Women’s Land Army in World War I Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the methodological challenges posed by interviews with former members of the Women’s Land Army held in Britain’s Imperial War Museum. These interviews were conducted approximately 60 years after the First World War as part of the Women’s War Work Collection that was created in an effort to capture the role of women in the wars of the twentieth century. These documents are certainly of value to the historian, although the decades that passed between event and recollection highlight the problematic relationship between history and memory. The author argues that due to this temporal gap and the continuation of lived experience that shaped both identity and memory in the intervening years, the interviews lose their evidentiary primacy and must be approached as secondary sources, albeit ones grounded in personal experience. This challenge is exacerbated by problems with the interview process itself that guided how the Land Girls’ narratives were reconstructed by the interviewees. This paper works toward a re-evaluation of the usefulness of these oral interviews.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".