MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039759112 · doi:10.1177/0968344513483229

Fighting Words: Canadian Soldiers’ Slang and Swearing in the Great War

2013· article· en· W2039759112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWar in History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlangMasculinityNewspaperActive listeningMeaning (existential)HistoryIdentity (music)LinguisticsLiteraturePsychologyMedia studiesSociologyGender studiesAestheticsArtCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Trench slang is a language all its own. No dictionary will give you the meaning of half its words.’ This claim appeared in the soldiers’ paper The Listening Post, one of the Canadian trench newspapers that was an outlet for soldiers’ writing, cartoons, and culture. Among trench soldiers there was also a vibrant oral culture, which included new slang, words, and phrases. A study of swearing and slang reveals another way to better understand the social and cultural history of soldiers, how they made sense of the war, how they distinguished themselves from civilians, how they provided an outlet for issues of masculinity, and how they unified aspects of their identity.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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