THE ATTITUDE OF QUEBEC ON THE PROBLEM OF CANADA’S ENTRY INTO THE FIRST WORLD WAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the new direction of social history, the subject field of which is the study of the social processes that accompanied the global conflicts of the 20th century, forms an objective idea about the attitude of the French-Canadian population on the problem of Canada‘s participation in the collective defense of the British Empire during the First World War. The paper examines the views of various groups of French-Canadian society (provincial government of Quebec, Roman Catholic Church’s representatives, French Canadian nationalists, provincial press of different social and political orientation) on the question of sending French-Canadian battalions to Europe. The chronology of the described events includes the first five months of the First World War (August – December 1914). As a result of the research, it estimates the level of imperial loyalty of the population of Quebec on the question of Canada‘s participation in the imperial wars. It studies the objective and subjective factors of the passivity of voluntary recruitment in Quebec (lack of military experience of the French-Canadian population, insufficient number of provincial police forces, traditionalism of the the rural population, anti-militarism propaganda of French-Canadian pacifists and nationalists, imperial policy of Department of Militia in Federal Government). It determines the role of the social movement for the creation of separate French-Canadian battalions in the process of activating recruitment and sending volunteers to the front.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".