Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern mind has demonized the bayonet as a weapon of war. Of all the popular images of the First World War, the most poignant is that of brave soldiers being sent “over the top” of their trenches with fixed bayonets for another futile charge on an enemy machine-gun emplacement. The bayonet has become, in some ways, a symbol for the frustration and futility of the war, as it seemed to be a weapon that should not have been there in the first place. Popular historians such as Pierre Berton have denounced it, claiming it to be, “as useful as a cutlass” on the modern industrialized battlefields of the Great War. What place could or should the direct descendant of the medieval pike have in the battle order of twentieth-century armies alongside weapons such as the machine gun? Why had this simple weapon not died out alongside the Napoleonic musket or the muzzle-loading cannon, yielding to the realities of technological progress? At first glance the survival of the bayonet as a weapon might seem like an anachronism to the historian, but here popular conceptions (or misconceptions) must be set aside. Whilst the bayonet charge may have become a symbol of the First World War, its use did not die in the trenches of northern France. Bayonet training was still a major part of infantry drill during the Second World War, and the United States armed forces continued to teach bayonet fighting up until at least the Vietnam War. Some
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".