MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778221883

Did Vimy Matter

2017· article· en· W2778221883 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J. L. Granatstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattleCourageEliteNationalismPolitical scienceRidgeHistoryLawEconomic historyAncient historyGeographyPoliticsCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vimy Ridge is the iconic Canadian battle in the public mind, a triumph of courage, and the creator of Canadian nationalism. But did Vimy matter tactically, strategically, or as the creator of the nation? This paper will look at who planned the April 1917 battle, who fought it, and what it meant in the long struggle of the Great War. That Vimy gave the Canadian Corps its recognition as an elite formation is evident, but what did Vimy really matter?

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.023
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207