A Great War of Expectations: Men, Mothers, and Monsters in Toronto, 1914-1918
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gendered expectations about wartime duty were central to Toronto's mobilization during the First World War.How Torontonians defined these duties and responsibilities -and how they imagined the war they were waging -exposes attitudes and reactions towards war that were contrary to those expected and promoted by the war effort.Many of these expectations were based on the prevailing imperial understandings of manhood, war, and militarism of the era.The historiography of the First World War generally presents ideas of a national coming of age.However, how Torontonians lived and imagined war from 1914 to 1918 demonstrates this experience was both contested and gendered.This case study of wartime Toronto examines how municipal, provincial, and federal authorities reinforced masculine expectations during wartime, and especially how active service was framed as the ultimate expression of manhood and masculinity.This study traces links between masculine duty and enlistment for war as communicated through war posters and the city's municipal organizations.Wartime activities -including recruitment and conscription, the identification of enemy aliens, and civil unrest -were framed by understandings of manhood that valued active military service as its ultimate test.Toronto was a military centre for the recruitment of acceptable soldier-volunteers, and later soldier-conscripts; it was also a place where "enemy aliens" were identified, suspected, and registered and where veterans struggled to readjust to civilian life.While some Torontonians supported the war and the ideals of freedom and democracy it was believed to safeguard, others voiced their displeasure about the war and its effects within the city.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".