MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595869463

The Birth of the Modern Canadian Army: Canadian Troops during the First World War, 1914–1918

2013· article· en· W2595869463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lieutenant-colonel Ian McCulloch

Bibliographic record

VenueGuerres mondiales et conflits contemporains · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEliteDoctrineAdaptation (eye)ManagementOrder (exchange)World War IILawCommand and controlPolitical scienceSociologyEngineeringPsychologyBusinessEconomicsTelecommunicationsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lethal environment of the First World War, which was constantly sustained by emerging technologies as well as improvements on older existing technologies, demanded rapid evolutionary adaptation in order for Allied troops to survive. The Canadian method of waging war and its command and control process that evolved as a result were driven by the innovative reorganizations of the Canadian Corps command system between 1916 and 1918 and the development of command techniques and applications that recognized the limitations of technology and worked around them. This article argues that improvements in training, doctrine, and organization were implemented successfully, not by the fighting men of the Canadian Corps, but by its commanders, who in turn were served admirably by their staff. The result was an elite and highly professional fighting formation of which all Canadians can justifiably be proud, and which subsequently formed the foundation of the modern Canadian Army.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0460.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGuerres mondiales et conflits contemporainsSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207