Recalling Resistance: remembering the First World War in Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the nationalist myth-making that emerged during WWI in Australia and Canada, arguing that similar patterns can be detected in popular efforts to make meaning if the conflict.It will then investigate the bases and nature if dissent, especially as they coalesced around the issue if conscription in the two dominions. Key to this analysis is an examination if the nature if the emerging form, style and meaning made if democracy and cultural identity in both societies. I argue that genuine anti-war movements emerged in response to the war, with their own conceptions if national virtue, but that these movements, like the ideals that inspired them, already had long traditions to draw upon. Those currents if belief and experience sustained them both during and after the conflict. While war resistance has been a topic if some interest to historians, these experiences, and the traditions if dissent that questioned war in the New World democracies, are barely remembered and receive no public commemoration, let alone celebration, in contemporary Canadian and Australian societies increasingly concerned with venerating all-things- war. Yet genuine alternatives for remembering the war exist today, nurtured as they have been by those dedicated to them for a century.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".