Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taken together, these books pose two key questions.First, what can we learn about memory formation and transmission from the rich histories of public exhibition and personal recollection gathered across the last hundred years?Second, how have the practices and politics of First World War remembering been changed by the hundredth anniversary?The answers provide an engaging divergence.In Roper's account, there is a continual circulation between the personal, family and local, communal memory, and wider commemorative practices.In contrast, Cornish and Saunders stress the importance of the public realm, and the revealing intersection of historical research, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, and politics.Curating the Great War is particularly engaged with the practices of museology, the materialities of conflict understood through remnants and sites, with the engagement of publics, audiences, and heritage authorities in making relevant versions of the past.Roper's study, Afterlives of War, is a more intimate affair.It is an ethnographic, sociological, and psychological inquiry into the nature of past making as it is experienced by descendants living with the long-term consequences of war.Roper deftly handles these personal aspects of engagement with the past.Afterlives of War is an absorbing, original, and persuasive meditation on 'memory in the aftermath'.Cornish and Saunders organise their edited collection, Curating the War, around three central themes.'Museums, Identities and the Politics of Memory' covers First World War museology from the cessation of hostilities to the centenary.This is not a comprehensive account, but it covers a range of institutions, including some of the major
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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".