Canada's First World War, 1914–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This fall marks 100 years since the First Canadian Contingent sailed for Europe. In anticipation of the anniversary of the First World War, the Canadian Historical Review prepared two special features to highlight past and current thinking about the war and its place in the journal and in Canadian history generally. The first, published in March, is a bibliography of the more than three-dozen articles directly related to the war that have appeared in the chr since it began publication in 1920, less than two years after the armistice. Each article in the bibliography will remain Open Access. You will find the bibliography complete with hyperlinks on our website at http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.1.97 . To continue this impressive tradition of scholarship and prompt new and equally diverse work on the war and related themes in its pages, the chr is pleased to publish the second special feature in this issue. Three scholars actively engaged in the study of the war were asked to contribute interpretative and broad, but unavoidably selective, reflections on how historians have written about Canada and the war. We invited a fourth to comment on these historiographic pieces and a fifth to help frame our readers' reflections on the commemorative and other public initiatives that have already begun and will intensify in the coming months. We are delighted that our authors accepted the challenge and trust our readers will find their work as useful and stimulating as we and our peer-reviewers have. This special feature also marks the inauguration of a new section of the chr, Historical Perspectives. This occasional section will showcase discussion among multiple scholars of important topics and historiographies. Mark Osborne Humphries opens with “Between Commemoration and History: The Historiography of the Canadian Corps and Military Overseas,” focusing on the Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) and the relationship between historians writing on the military overseas and those analyzing the home front ( http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.3.384 . Amy Shaw then examines how historians have understood the contribution of nurses and other women, motherhood and family, and aspects of mourning in her “Expanding the Narrative: A First World War with Women, Children, and Grief” ( http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.3.398 ). Mourad Djebabla's “Historiographie francophone de la Première Guerre mondiale: écrire la Grande Guerre de 1914–1918 en français au Canada et au Québec” discusses French-language scholarship as related to the war, especially concerning Quebec ( http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.3.407 ). Tim Cook's wide-ranging “Battles of the Imagined Past: Canada's Great War and Memory” reflects on the topics of the initial three contributors and considers four possible narratives: the war as a terrific and useless slaughter, nation-building tool, divisive event, and absent event http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.3.417 . Like Cook, Christopher Moore's thought-provoking “1914 in 2014” considers the collective memory of the war and historians' contribution to it, asking “What we commemorate when we commemorate the First World War?” What might a counter-narrative to the dominant view of Canada's decision to enter the war in 1914 as natural and nationalizing contribute? ( http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/chr.95.3.427 )
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".