Amodern and modern warfare in the making of a commercial airline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the impact of warfare, gender, and memory on the development of Imperial Airways (British Airways’ predecessor airline). Through a ‘close reading’ of archival materials and published histories, we examine how wartime experience prior, during, and following World War I came to shape the development of gendered organizational processes and practices in the airline’s emergent organizational culture from 1924–1939. Gender is theorized from a feminist poststructuralist position serving to problematize singular notions of power. Analysis of culture is explored through an ANTi-History and microhistorical approach revealing how history is produced and constitutes the ‘sense’ of organization. We examine how references to warfare are introduced into the narratives of Imperial Airways and its predecessor airlines, how warfare is utilized in the airline’s historical accounts, and how this influences our understanding of gender over time. Findings suggest two key aspects of memory at play. Memory of warfare is more embedded in cultural practices (e.g. piloting as male only) and symbolism (e.g. military-style pilots’ uniforms) than in extant narratives of the time. However, despite the Women’s Royal Air Force in 1918 and exploits of pre-war female flyers, women’s role in warfare was largely forgotten at all levels of the airline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".