Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the First World War, there were two competing meanings of ‘corps’ in Britain and the Empire. 1 For politicians, a corps meant a national formation of troops, embodying the aspirations of their nations and the distinctive character of their men. Hence, in 1914, David Lloyd George wanted to form a Welsh corps of two divisions and for Australian and Canadian politicians from 1915 onwards, their corps effectively represented their national armies. In contrast, for the commanders of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), corps was a structural military concept – a level of command between army and division – to facilitate operations. At first sight, the development of the BEF appears to indicate that the nationalist concept prevailed. Although there never was a Welsh corps, the two Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) later known as the Australian and XXII Corps, and the Canadian Corps were established in 1915 and 1916, respectively, existing as units independent of the seventeen British corps in the BEF by 1918. But in parallel with this, corps as a level of command also evolved tremendously (this chapter will refer to corps in this sense unless it is stated otherwise). From supposedly functioning as a mere postbox in 1914, by mid-1917 corps had become the most important level of command in planning and executing operations. As such it played a crucial role in winning the war in 1918. These parallel processes raise questions about the relationship between the two concepts of corps. Did the Australian, Canadian, or the Indian Corps represent national armies in the BEF, distinct in structure and function from the British corps? How similar or otherwise were the command structures in the various corps? And how did such similarities or differences shape their performance? The relevance of these questions lies in the growing interest since the early 1990s in how the BEF (with its allies) ended up defeating so formidable a force as the German Army in 1918. What were the contributions to victory of the disparate corps?
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.003 |
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".