Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hockey magnate Conn Smythe, Trudeau cabinet minister Gilles Lamontagne, and the composer and former conductor of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, Sir Ernest MacMillan, share something other than their fame: they all have the dubious distinction of having been captured by the enemy during Canada’s wars of the twentieth century. Like some 15,000 other Canadians, Smythe, Lamontagne, and MacMillan experienced the bewilderment that accompanied the moment of capture, the humiliation of being completely in the captor’s power, and the sense of stagnating in a backwater while the rest of the world moved forward. From prison camps in Eire, where POWs were allowed to keep pets and to be members of the local tennis clubs, to camps in Japan, where prisoners were often severely beaten, systematically starved, and overworked, Canadian prisoners of war throughout the twentieth century have faced a variety of conditions and experiences. But they did not fight their war alone and isolated. On the home front, many other people attempted to help them. Against the backdrop of the POW experience, Jonathan Vance provides the first comprehensive account of how the Canadian government and non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross have dealt with the problems of prisoners of war. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Vance traces the growth of Canadian interest in the plight of POWs. He goes on to examine the measures taken to assist Canadian POWs during the two world wars and the Korean war. The book focuses in particular on the campaigns to ship relief supplies to prison camps and on attempts to secure the prisoners’ release. POWs have sometimes been seen as forgotten casualties whose privations were misunderstood during war and whose needs were neglected afterwards. This perception developed out of a tradition in POW memoirs which paid little attention to the efforts of politicians, civil servants, and individuals who devoted considerable time and energy to their cause. Vance argues that this impression is wrong and that, in fact, every effort was made to ameliorate conditions for men and women in captivity. In his book, he outlines the difficulties and confusion that arose from jurisdictional squabbling and lack of clear communication. Ironically, Vance concludes, obstacles were more often created by an overabundance of enthusiasm than by a lack of interest in the prisoners’ fate. Canada’s wartime bureaucracy, often praised by historians, is revealed as needlessly complex and, in many ways, hopelessly inefficient. In Objects of Concern, Jonathan Vance examines Canada’s role in the formation of an important aspect of international law, traces the growth and activities of a number of national and local philanthropic agencies, and recounts the efforts of ex-prisoners to secure compensation for the long-term effects of captivity. In doing so, he reminds Canadians of an aspect of war that has often been overlooked in conventional military history.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.211 | 0.082 |
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".