MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971609030 · doi:10.1177/0022009419864159

War Trophies, War Memorabilia, and the Iconography of Victory in the British Empire

2019· article· en· W2971609030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Wellington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictorySpanish Civil WarNational identityHistoryNarrativeLawPolitical scienceArtPoliticsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultural efforts to mobilise populations behind the war in Britain and its Dominions, Canada and Australia – especially through the exhibition of war trophies – solidified after the Armistice into state-supported institutions creating and promoting a culture of victory. This culture was most pronounced, and most centralised, in Australia. Wartime propaganda institutions grew into national war museums which effectively froze the victorious national war effort, and the moment of triumph, in three-dimensional form. The institutions, and the people who ran them, did not demobilise with the peace. These museums used substantially the same objects and techniques they had used in wartime to support the war effort to create a postwar narrative in which victory established a clear (and martial) national identity, and also justified the war itself. At the same time, the narrative of a British imperial victory was used to create claims of unity which denied the reality of divisions in society. Trophies wrested from wartime enemies were used as pride-inducing objects to fundraise for peace, and fashioned into war memorials that were at once sites of mourning and monuments celebrating military dominance. Visions of postwar peace and progress could not be disentangled from victory and the violence that enabled it.

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 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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary HistorySame topicWorld Wars: History, Literature, and ImpactFrench-language works237,207