In the Land of Mad Men: Diagnosis Treatment, and Social Stigma Surrounding Shell Shock in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces of the First World War, 1914-1930
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of traumatic war neurosis---today such an integral part of discussions of military service and civil obligations to traumatized veterans---finds its origins in the controversy surrounding shell shock in the First World War. Stories of nerve wrecked men with inexplicable symptoms captivated public interest in a way that it never had before, forcing both the medical and military communities to confront the specter of war neurosis in modern warfare. My work targets the battle over diagnostic methodology that occurred between Canadian neurologists and psychiatrists. Cases of psychologically traumatized servicemen became the fighting ground between each discipline as both sides sought to prove their own theories of causation and treatment correct. My thesis traces the history of “shell shock” in Canada from its beginnings in 1914 through the post-war pension debate of 1930. In particular I focus on how the diagnoses of war neurosis in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces were influenced not only by the constantly changing medical understanding of the disease, but also by Canadian masculinity, social class, and heredity as well as the needs of the Allied forces.\nMy thesis draws on personal letters and memoirs of Canadian soldiers with shell shock as well as military memos and correspondence to tell the story of the men that experienced shell shock in the First World War. My research also relies heavily on private patient files, medical publications, and medical notes and memos regarding shell shocked Canadians.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".