Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his article "The Great War," which appeared in the final volume of the Cambridge History of Christianity, Michael Snape summarizes the themes and historiography that have developed related to the Christian churches' response to the First World War. He notes that "much harsh and selfrighteous criticism" has been leveled at the "churches' wartime attitudes and activities." To quote him further: "the historiography of Christianity 1 during the war years has been heavily focused on the churches and their leadership and has been strongly influenced by the pacifism of the interwar and Cold War eras." He goes on to recognize that while there is 2 "plenty of scope for moralizing and recrimination," these themes have confused our understanding of these years. Again, to quote Michael Snape: "what they have obscured is the fundamental fact that the churches interpreted the war and their role within it in the light of their nineteenthcentury experiences and outlook, not in the more chastened spirit of later decades of the twentieth." n important point has been made here. If there is one thing historians should be concerned about, it is the possibility that we might be unfairly reading back into the past values and expectations from a later time, in particular from our own times. We as historians struggle with our biases, those we are conscious of as well as those of which we may remain unaware. That attitudes to war changed in the twentieth century should not be a surprise. To state the obvious, the Great War did not succeed in ending all wars; instead, it laid the seeds for another, even greater
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".