MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028551768 · doi:10.1080/13576275.2012.651831

Individual and group identity in WWII commemorative sites

2012· article· en· W2028551768 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeleine Mant, Nancy C. Lovell

Bibliographic record

VenueMortality · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDurham UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsIdentity (music)World War IICollective identityGenealogyHistoryNational identityFirst world warSpanish Civil WarPrisoners of warGeographyArchaeologyEthnologyAncient historyLawArtPolitical scienceAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five sites commemorating large-scale mortuary events are compared in order to discover how individual and collective identities are created, maintained, and lost in memorials such as cemeteries and monuments. These five sites, the American Military Cemetery in Normandy, France; the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, USA; Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, USA; Auschwitz-Birkenau outside Oświęcim, Poland; and Treblinka outside Malkinia, Poland, are locations that memorialise thousands of people and are linked through their connection to the events of World War II. The creation of military and prisoner identities during the war is analysed and the factors affecting commemoration are identified. The sites are analysed according to their geographic location, headstone designs, organisation, and erected monuments. Four commonalities among these commemorative sites are identified: symbolic location, attention to symmetry, the heterogeneous nature of the dead being subsumed into the collective identity, and the dead being given an artificial equality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMortalitySame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207