Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being a Prisoner of War (POW) is a mentally and physically trying event for any soldier who has to experience it. Many captured soldiers are forced to live in horrid conditions, where they may be required for intensive labour, suffer from malnutrition, are often tortured, and in some cases, unable to contact their family. For some, they returned home after surviving these trying conditions only to be accused of being weak or “brainwashed” by the enemy to sympathize with foreign agendas. In the 1950’s, after many World War II POWs were returning home, this was a very popular subject in media, which only exacerbated the public opinion of weakness among the soldiers. The fear of explicit indoctrination by captors can cause panic in the public sphere during times of war, leading to a misunderstanding of soldiers who have returned home from POW camps. However, this paper will prove there is a tendency among soldiers who returned to be more understanding and tolerant of other cultures, without being a threat to their own country. With a focus on soldiers who fought in the 20th century, this paper will explore the process of indoctrination or re-education, how media influences the public response to POWs, and case studies of soldiers who returned home without feelings of disdain for their captors. Beyond all the negativity, and despite the Prisoner of War survivors living through generally horrible conditions, because exposure to different cultures, few of them retained negative feelings towards their captors after they have been released.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".