MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Veterans' Benefits and Indigenous Veterans of the Second World War in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

2017· article· en· W2766227109 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWicazo Sa Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Military Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHomecomingMilitary serviceKinshipFeelingHistoryBrotherWorld War IIGender studiesPolitical scienceMedia studiesMedicineLawPsychologySociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterans’ Benefits and Indigenous Veterans of the Second World War in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States R. Scott Sheffield (bio) “One day a notice came out of the first sergeant’s office with my name on it. It was my pass to go back to the states! After thirty-four months, five campaigns, and many battles, I was going home! I had made it, but my brother had not.”1 With these words, Hollis D. Stabler began his journey home and his transition from an Omaha soldier into a Native American veteran. It is difficult to imagine the immensity or complexity of the feelings that Second World War Indigenous service personnel experienced, after months or even years away in military services, in anticipating and living through their homecoming, “most filled with jubilant anticipation, some plagued by weariness, and a few haunted by the dark memories of battlefield carnage.”2 For many, the warmth of welcome, the kinship of family, and the familiarity of home deeply comforted them. “I didn’t believe that I was home until I got to see my folks,” one Canadian Cree veteran recalled. “I said to myself, ‘I’m on home ground now. I’m safe.’”3 Such commentaries highlight the shared humanity and commonalities in experiences between Indigenous service personnel and their non-Indigenous comrades in arms. At the most basic and personal level, the war’s end was about a young man or woman returning home to families and lives left behind, each story unique though replicated countless times across Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Yet arriving home was only the beginning of a war veteran’s experience. Subsequently, the legislative and administrative architecture [End Page 63] prepared to aid returned service personnel transition back to civilian life figured prominently. The relative success of reestablishment measures for the bulk of American, Australian, New Zealander, and Canadian ex-service personnel has contributed hugely to the popular view of the Second World War as the “good war.” The degree to which Native American, Māori, Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islander Australian and First Nations veterans participated in this rosy postwar story is uncertain. This study addresses this gap in our understanding through a transnational examination of the administration of veterans’ benefits for Indigenous military personnel in four victorious settler societies that all mobilized significant recruits from their Indigenous minority populations. The value in this approach is in helping to distinguish peculiar conditions within any individual Indigenous community or country from broader shared patterns of settler colonialism. This broader lens works dialectically with more localized studies, challenging assumptions and drawing in concepts and patterns from other experiences in comparable societies. To date, the postwar experiences of Indigenous Second World War veterans have garnered little scholarly attention in these four settler societies.4 Canada is a partial exception to this pattern due to a high-profile lobbying campaign over Indigenous veterans’ grievances from the 1970s to the 2000s.5 Central in transitioning to civilian life was the support available to returning servicemen and servicewomen from their governments. All four of these victorious states developed elaborate and generous packages for all veterans. Though the precise mechanics differed, each government tended to craft a similar blend of financial reward, transitional funds, training/educational provisions, employment support/advantages, access to loans for land or business development, disability pensions, and other miscellaneous measures.6 Governments had learned from the inadequacies of programs for veterans after the First World War and sought to construct a more flexible, compassionate, and comprehensive system the second time around.7 In each country, veterans’ programs were early and massive experiments in state social welfare development.8 The integration of Indigenous minorities into broader welfare structures was a complex process of converting Indigenous people from segregated services supposedly designed for distinct groups to inclusion in state programs designed for all citizens. The relationship between Indigenous service personnel and the benefits available to veterans was a microcosm of the broader integration of Indigenous populations into settler state welfare. For Indigenous peoples and settler societies alike, access to military service and status as army, navy, or air force members had been an important and...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.284 · 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