Women War Artists in the Canadian War Museum Collection, 1914-1945: Treasures from the Paper Vault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most Canadian war art of the First and Second World War was produced by male artists, a handful of women artists were commissioned to capture their own impressions of these conflicts. This piece highlights eight works by four such artists: Caroline Armington, Alma Duncan, Bobs (Zema) Cogill Haworth, and Pegi Nicol MacLeod. All are works on paper and all are part of the Canadian War Museum’s Beaverbrook Collection of War Art.\nRésumé: Bien que la plus grande part de l’art militaire canadien des Première et Seconde Guerres mondiales ait été produite par des hommes, il a été demandé à quelques femmes artistes d’exprimer leurs impressions de ces conflits. Le présent article met en lumière huit oeuvres de quatre femmes artistes : Caroline Armington, Alma Duncan, Bobs (Zema) Cogill Haworth et Pegi Nicol MacLeod. Il s’agit d’oeuvres sur papier qui font toutes partie de la Collection d’art militaire Beaverbrook du Musée canadien de la guerre.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.006 |
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".