MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185887110

Between Law and Inhumanity: Canadian Troops and British Responses to Guerrilla Warfare in the South African War

2009· article· en· W3185887110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forces College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVictoryGuerrilla warfareLawRefugeeCitizen journalismPolitical scienceInterpretation (philosophy)Settlement (finance)HistoryCriminologyPoliticsSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the war in South Africa 1899-1902, British forces and imperial contingents from the self-governing colonies adopted drastic measures against civilians as a means to counter the guerrilla strategy adopted by the Boers. Protections afforded non-combatants under the existing laws of war on land were curtailed, farms and crops were burned, livestock and seed stocks were destroyed, and women, children, and the elderly were concentrated into refugee camps under British control where thousands died from neglect, disease, and starvation. Though technically legal under British interpretation of the laws and customs of the time, the harsh and inhumane treatment meted out to Boer civilians evolved from the ruthless military policies of British operational commanders, in particular Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener, and carried out by troops like the Canadians. Canadian soldiers were observers and participants in the nasty underside of military operations against the Boers, hardly mentioned in conventional military texts and histories. Military victory came with a disproportionate cost in human lives among civilians, with direct parallel to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207