Bibliographic record
Abstract
War and how it is remembered are still timely and significant subjects for many Canadians as witnessed by the recent ceremony to mark the reburial of Canada's Unknown Soldier in the newly completed tomb at the base of the National War Memorial in Ottawa. Although literature on Canadian war memorials is plentiful, the memorials have been primarily discussed in terms of their production and meaning within an historical context. As we enter a new millennium, it is time to look at our abundant heritage of twentieth-century war memorials through a new lens, a lens which does not seek to document or decode, but rather seeks to examine the relation of traditional war memorials to the present time and to discuss them in terms of postmodernism in order to consider the following question: Can our traditional twentieth-century war memorials be meaningful memory markers for the twenty-first century? Barbara Steinman's Cenotaph (1985-86) acts as a nucleus from which discussion radiates outward, and through a series of chapters that address the interrelated issues of form, function and ideology, a theory of postmodernism in the context of war memorials is developed. Chapter Two looks at how traditional and postmodern monuments differ in their use of formal elements including text. Chapter Three considers the ways in which monuments function: as permanent installation; as ephemeral entities such as temporary, traveling, or disappearing installations; and as sites of performance, both ritual and interventionist. Chapter Four discusses the ideologically intertwined constructions of nationalism, race and gender in traditional and postmodern monuments, before wrapping up the discussion in the final chapter.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".