Lest We Commemorate: Assembling Canada's Great War Centenary, 2014-2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation studies the commemorative practices of the centenary of the First World War (2014-2018).The centenary occurred within a decade-long commemorative period known as the "Road to 2017" (2010-2017) that was itself dedicated to marking the 150 th anniversary of Confederation.While participating in commemorations, particularly federally sanctioned ones, is socially and culturally constructed as an act of good citizenship, these elements have resulted in scholarship that focusses on nation, nationalism, and collective memory.In contrast, this dissertation approaches commemoration through the lens of labour and its practitioners as history workers.To do so, the dissertation applies assemblage theory and a wide range of methods to an archive of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) records, interviews with commemoration professionals inside and outside of government, media, and ethnographic observations.It explores how battlefields were assembled into commemorative landscapes and recognizes both the human and non-human agency involved in those processes.The dissertation then focusses acutely on the day-to-day bureaucratic work involved with designing, enacting, and managing centenary events and practices, and considers the affective nature of that labour on the people who did it.Throughout the chapters, interviews and ATIP records provide unique perspective from inside the various bureaucratic and commemorative assemblages that intersected during the First World War centenary, while ethnographic fieldwork reveals some of the hidden and unexpected elements of commemorative experiences.This dissertation argues that more scholarly attention should be paid to the practical and logistical components of commemoration.To do so means to better iii understand what makes commemorations affective, including why accessible and operating toilets can be as important as navigating the political nuances of which flags to display in what order at a centenary ceremony.An attention to practice, furthermore, also makes possible a more generous, empathetic appreciation of a group of ofteninvisible history workers who, despite often stressful working conditions, sacrificed aspects of their personal lives and wellbeing to execute the important large-scale events that comprised the Canadian centenary experience.Earning a History PhD has been a goal of mine since I was young.Though I did not know anyone with a PhD, and none of my relatives had one, I loved history and wanted to pursue it academically as far as I could go.Prior to and throughout my undergrad, I was told numerous times that a history degree would not lead me into a career, that it was a "useless degree" unless I wanted to teach (which I did not).However, my mom taught me when I was young that I could do anything I put my mind to.This is what I put my mind to, and I am proud to have accomplished it.When I made the decision to leave home at seventeen years old and start my undergraduate degree at Carleton University, I never imagined it would become my home for nine wonderful years.I would first like to thank the Department of History for nurturing my love of history and supporting my academic pursuits throughout my B.A. and PhD.To James (Jim) Opp for igniting my love of historical theory.To Yvonne Aleksandra (Alek) Bennett for the lengthy comments on my papers, for the many conversations over tea, and for encouraging me to pursue a master's degree.To the administrative staff in the Department of History, especially Joan White for the invaluable support over the years.Joan, you are an institution, and I am so grateful to have benefited from your guidance.Thank you to my committee members
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".