The Empire's War Recalled: Recent Writing on the Western Front Experience of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ninetieth anniversary of the end of the First World War in 2008 was marked with the publication of a number of works in many parts of what was once the British Empire. We saw an increased output in publications on the Western Front. In Britain, the recent literature attempts to rehabilitate Douglas Haig and define the ‘learning curve’ that enabled the British army to defeat Germany in 1918. In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the performance of their soldiers on the Western Front is seen as central to national identity and this now focuses on military success rather than sacrifice in a futile war. In India, South Africa and Jamaica, there is a renewed interest in linking the First World War to national identities based on the independence or liberation struggle. In Ireland, the Great War is seen as a shared experience that can link the Nationalist and Unionist traditions in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The article concludes that this interest in the Western Front will continue into the next decade in the lead‐up to the centenary of the First World War.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".