Martha Hanna. <i>Anxious Days and Tearful Nights: Canadian War Wives during the Great War</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The great World War I conscript armies of continental Europe required married men to serve. In Great Britain, conscription was introduced in 1916, and in the course of that year expanded from unmarried to married men. Canadian conscription, imposed in 1917, began with unmarried men but the war ended before married men were forced into service. Almost all the married men who served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force were volunteers, and they enlisted in droves. The wives and children they left behind have received relatively little attention, but they find their historian in Martha Hanna. Offering what she calls a “composite portrait of Canada’s war wives,” Hanna’s book makes for illuminating and at times heartbreaking reading as it tracks the trials and tribulations of women coping with anxiety about their husbands’ safety even as they struggled to make ends meet and raise children alone. Given that Canada’s married soldiers were mostly volunteers, Hanna begins Anxious Days and Tearful Nights by inverting a familiar recruitment slogan to ask, “Daddy, why did you go to war?” Volunteers were frequently British-born immigrants who saw enlistment as patriotic support for the homeland. Some saw the war in idealistic terms, while others sought to escape unhappy marriages. Many were motivated by the desire to boost their family’s income, especially in the war’s first year, when an economic recession that began in 1913 kept many people in straitened circumstances. Enlistment ensured that a man’s wife received a monthly Separation Allowance of roughly $20 funded by the federal government. A soldier could opt to assign a portion of his pay to go directly to his family, and wives received supplemental support from the Canadian Patriotic Fund, a private organization dependent on donations that Hanna asserts was unique among belligerent nations. By Hanna’s calculation, the average Canadian war wife had between $50 and $60 per month; it was a meager sum, especially as the cost of living rose by late 1916.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".