Canada's Cultural Mobilization during the First World War and a Case for Canadian War Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Talbot Mercer Papineau's letter to Henri Bourassa and Papineau's impact on Canadian cultural mobilization and its war culture. European historians of the First World War have used the concept of cultural mobilization to understand the lines that connected battlefront and home front and their impact. As evidenced by the recent historiographical review of First World War literature in the pages of the Canadian Historical Review, Canadian scholars ought to adopt a similar framework to unite two literatures that separately focus on the military history and social history of the war. Papineau's 1916 letter provides a glimpse into how a soldier expressed his perspective of the war from the frontlines and participated in the mobilization of Canada's war culture. His writing was a result of his war experience, but Papineau wrote it for a Canadian audience at home, and its wide publication exposed his views to millions across Canada and Britain. Papineau urged Canadian citizens (specifically French Canadians) to support the purpose and value of the war as understood by Canadian soldiers. This article offers Papineau as a case study to encourage a new direction for the Canadian history of the First World War and further work on cultural mobilization and war culture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".