Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the relationship between material culture, war memory, and identity for South Africa, India, Canada, and Australia in the First World War’s aftermath 1918-1938. Their material culture of commemoration on the battlefields fell under the Imperial War Graves Commission’s remit; this complicated the decision-making processes for these sites, and caused them to serve as stages upon which relationships between national, imperial, collective, and individual identities were negotiated and performed in stone. Using five memorials in France and Belgium as case studies and also incorporating cemeteries, this thesis is a transnational, comparative, and interdisciplinary work. It advances new evidence for the spatial and conceptual relationships that existed between landscape, memorial, cemetery, the dead, and the living in imperial remembrance contexts, and uses representative engagements – objects, events, and decisions – to demonstrate how the articulation of identities was embedded in and navigated through them. The chapters interrogate the relationships between place, object, people, and distance, through the lens of absence and presence. They argue that links between landscape, material culture, and the dead created reciprocally conferred meanings; that memorials and cemeteries for India and the Dominions were objects with agency; and that connection across distance was crucial in how these places functioned as sites of identity. The material culture of remembrance is increasingly at the heart of First World War memory; as living memory has faded, it is the tangible remains – artefacts, memorials, and cemeteries – that we ask to tell us stories about our countries, our predecessors, and ourselves. Today, their contemporary relevance is prominently recognised in the public consciousness and media. It is critical that we have an understanding of these sites’ significance to the people who derived meaning from them at the time of their creation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".