Bibliographic record
Abstract
History never repeats itself, but historians always repeat each other. (1) That uncharitable view of profession may be true in cases, but scholarship by a new generation of historians is searching deep into the archives of the nation find meaning in the past, asking new questions and employing new methodologies. Historians are no longer content simply mimic previous interpretations. Despite this new research, however, most historians are guided by their predecessors, and are certainly affected by past historical interpretations. This article explores the first generation of Canadian historians capture the Great War experience in print. The aim is not compile an annotated bibliography, but instead delve into the writing of these period histories, exploring the authors and their attempt navigate the pressures and constituencies they faced in shaping the historical memory of that conflict. (2) This article, then, is less about the final historical products than the interplay of historians within the societies that spawned them and shaped their work. The canon of first-generation history was written by veterans, journalists, and amateur historians trying find meaning within Canada's Great War experience. The field was dominated by Colonel Archer Fortescue Duguid, the official historian of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF). Duguid's control of the archival war records also allowed him exclude or marginalize other writers who hoped construct the historical memory of the conflict. The interplay of Duguid with other war writers supported the burgeoning field of academic military history, but still had a prominent goal of protecting, buttressing, or shaping reputations, either for a small pantheon of heroes or the Canadian Corps as a whole. The Great War was a watershed in Canada's development as a nation. One need not fully embrace the belief that Canadians gained their identity on the slopes of Vimy Ridge and still acknowledge that Canada as a country was never the same after partaking in that four-year-long awful bloodletting. With a population of not yet eight million, over 60,000 Canadians were killed in service; put this into perspective, Canada's proportional loses today would be a quarter million dead, and another 500,000 maimed. The Great War was Canada's coming-of-age event. Sir Max Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook, was the first chronicler of Canada's Great War experience. Beenacrook, the little Canadian adventurer on the make, as one British socialite called him, devoted his considerable energies during the Great War publicize and propagate the deeds of his Canadian brethren. Beaverbrook had made his millions in Canada before the war by buying up companies, amalgamating them, and selling the over-issued stock at a higher price. Although he left Canada under a cloud of accusations that he had cheated a number of rich business partners out of their money, he remained close friends with the Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Sam Hughes, and the prime minister, Sir Robert Borden. In England, Aitken began buy up newspapers, mingled in the highest social circles, was elected the House of Commons, and knighted. As the guns of August unleashed in 1914, Aitken watched helplessly as friends like Winston Churchill found influential appointments. There would be nothing for him in the Asquith wartime government. After some soul-searching, and more than a little wrangling, he convinced Hughes appoint him Canadian Eye Witness at the front. He sent reports back Hughes and Borden in this capacity, often appraising them of political or military issues in London. Moreover, he supplied journalistic accounts that were published throughout Canada, further highlighting the role of the Canadian forces. But he wished go further. Aitken described his vision Borden: to follow the fortunes of the First Division in France, share its experiences, give the public of Canada an account of the performances of its regiments, and finally enshrine in a contemporary history those exploits which will make the First Division immortal. …
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".