MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013904876 · doi:10.1353/can.2005.0094

Juno: Canadians at D-Day June 6, 1944, and: Juno Beach: Canada's D-Day Victory: June 6, 1944 (review)

2005· article· en· W2013904876 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryCentennialHistoryJournalismArt historyMedia studiesAncient historyArchaeologyLawSociologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Juno: Canadians at D-Day June 6, 1944, and: Juno Beach: Canada's D-Day Victory: June 6, 1944 James Wood Juno: Canadians at D-Day June 6, 1944. Ted Barris. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004. Pp. 311, illus. $34.95 Juno Beach: Canada's D-Day Victory: June 6, 1944. Mark Zuehlke. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2004. Pp. 415, illus. $35.00 In 1994, the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day was accompanied in the United States by a resurgence of public interest in the Allied invasion of Normandy and a flood of publications on the subject. Ten years later - as is so often the case in this country - the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary has occasioned the release of two new books on Canada's 'Longest Day.' Juno, by Ted Barris, and Mark Zuehlke's Juno Beach have gathered the stories of Canadian soldiers, sailors, and airmen who took part in the landings to provide readers with two popular accounts of Canada's contribution to the Allied invasion. Despite the similarity of their titles, however, Barris and Zuehlke have written two very different [End Page 128] books. While both have merit and will find their respective audiences, Zuehlke's work of history is a more detailed and comprehensive look at the Canadians who took part in D-Day. To the task of recounting Canada's role in the invasion, Barris brings his credentials as media broadcaster and instructor of journalism at Centennial College, and his experience as the author of nearly a dozen books. Intended for general audiences and with a brief foreword by well-known historian John Keegan, Juno tells the story of D-Day through the eyes of the Canadians who lived through it. Based largely upon published secondary sources and supported by the author's extensive collection of interviews, the events of that momentous day are conveyed in Juno through the personal recollections of individual participants, a cast of characters that includes not only soldiers but also their families, French civilians, and the Canadian press. Journalists, in particular, figure prominently throughout Juno, and the author has clearly conceived a great admiration for the war correspondents who followed the troops ashore. Vivid accounts of the invasion by reporters Ross Munro, William Stewart, and others provide much of the human interest and variety of perspectives that are among the strengths of this book. At times, however, the experience of the press seems to overshadow the events they sought to portray. The story of a Canadian Army cameraman who filmed the Queen's Own Rifles (qor) going ashore at Bernières-sur-Mer, for example, receives as much space in the text as the story of the soldiers who are depicted in his thirty-five seconds of motion-picture footage. On D-Day, 'B' Company of the qor touched down directly in front of a German strong point that had scarcely received a scratch from preliminary air and naval bombardment. Within just moments, half of the company lay dead or wounded, yet the remainder still managed to overcome the German defences and fight their way off the beach. We are all entitled to our heroes, and there is no good reason to exclude journalists from our admiration, but too often in this book it seemed that the 'poor-bloody-infantry' was once again coming away with the short end of the stick. Differences of opinion are easily dismissed; errors of fact occurring throughout the text are not. Barris incorrectly attributes Eisenhower's decision on a twenty-four-hour postponement of D-Day to 6 June to the findings of a Canadian weather reconnaissance flight that took place on the afternoon of 4 June - but the decision had already been made by 04:30. He writes that to compensate for the inexperience of its soldiers, the Wehrmacht brought in 'younger leaders, some of the notorious Hitler Youth who knew how to motivate green troops' (26-7), demonstrating a misreading of the 12th SS Panzer Division's role in Normandy. [End Page 129] The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion is credited with the capture of the Merville Battery (75), guns that were in fact destroyed by the British 9th Battalion, with...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207