Bibliographic record
Abstract
Late in and following the Great War, many Canadian regiments set about preparing their wartime histories, while memories were fresh.These were usually written by veterans.There were two early birds in the 4th Canadian Division's 11th Brigade, to which the 75th (Mississauga) Battalion belonged.The 54th (British Columbia) Battalion, keen to give the men a printed keepsake, produced a short history while billeted in Belgium in 1919; the 102nd (North British Columbians) Battalion's history appeared in October 1919.Both books relied heavily on the War Diary, a daily record of happenings in a war zone that every battalion had to keep.In the 1920s, with time for proper gathering and assessment of information, a spate of regimental histories emerged.In 1923 came Lieutenant Professor Ralph Hodder-Williams's lavishly illustrated two volumes about the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), published in England by the author's family's firm Hodder and Stoughton; in 1925, Robert C. Fetherstonhaugh's volume on the 13th Battalion Royal Highlanders; and in 1925, Sir Andrew Macphail's history of the Canadian Army Medical Services.The next year brought Captain S.G.Bennett's account of the 4th Canadian Mounted Rifles and Fetherstonhaugh's of the 14th (Royal Montreal) Battalion.As thorough and beautifully produced as Hodder-William's PPCLI volumes was Lieutenant-Colonel H.M. Urquhart's The History of the 16th Battalion in the Great War 1914War -1919War (1932)).That same year, Kim Beattie's 48th Highlanders of Canada, 1891-1928 covered the regiment's beginnings and its history through the Great War, during which it raised and supplied soldiers for the 15th, 92nd, and 134th Battalions overseas.Major D.J. Corrigall released his history of the 20th Battalion in 1935.These histories and others from the period covered events and personalities in great detail, illuminating these units' experiences in the Great War.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.430 | 0.229 |
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".