MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013767622 · doi:10.3138/cras.39.3.321

Disabled Veterans in the Americas: Canadians “Soldier On” after Afghanistan—Operation Enduring Freedom and the Canadian Mission

2009· article· en· W2013767622 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sally Chivers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Public spherePerspective (graphical)Order (exchange)SociologyPublic discourseGender studiesPolitical scienceCriminologyLawHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This paper situates media representations of Canadian “wounded” veterans coming home from Afghanistan in the broader context of war-veteran representation, from a disability studies perspective. The paper raises questions about the absence from these public sites of discourse about psychiatric disability. The author proposes that the attempt to cover up the violence of Canada's new combat role fits a pattern of the avoidance of acknowledging disability in the Canadian public sphere. She examines media coverage of those soldiers who have come home prematurely in order to articulate their tacit and explicit relationship to notions circulating of what military personnel refer to as the “vital interests of a nation.” She argues that, in this discourse, disability is not merely a symbolic excess to war but rather is part of the fundamental and material logic of war and its relationship to national belonging.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0150.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207